You must prepare a background briefing for the following case. For this you will use the PIRAC method. Your background briefing should be reasonably detailed, outlining the law that you believe applies (cases and legislation). For cases, you must indicate the key findings/authority and why you are either applying or distinguishing the case. For legislation, you must indicate specific sections you are relying on and why you believe they apply. If there are cases that assist in interpreting these specific sections they should be identified, including the key findings.

Facts of the case:

Scientists at Tasmanian Agricultural Research (TAR) hope to develop a vaccine to prevent viruses being transmitted from humans to sheep. The industry has been suffering from COVID-19 type viruses infecting livestock herds. To assist their research, they want to conduct research on sheep and other livestock.

Steve and Kate Arnott are sheep farmers on a property near Richmond, Tasmania, with Steve responsible for its day-to-day operations. Due to recent virus transmissions, stock prices have fallen and Steve and Kate are wondering what they should do with their land and sheep. They decide to lease to TAR four acres of land for five years. This land would be used to house the sheep on which the new vaccine is being tested.

Steve and Kate agree to sign a contract prepared by TAR's lawyers. The contract gives TAR exclusive use of the four designated acres of land. In turn, TAR promises to use the land only for agricultural research purposes, and not for making profit. TAR will pay $10 per year to Steve and Kate for the right to use the land over the five years. TAR will also acknowledge Steve and Kate by naming any successful vaccines after them.

One year into the contract, prices for wool and meat have risen dramatically. Steve and Kate would like to end the contract and take their land back. They believe there was not really a contract with TAR, since the rent was only $10 per year, which indicates a simple friendly arrangement rather than a binding contract.

Steve and Kate also run a gym in nearby Rosny Park calledPump it Up!, with Kate responsible for its day-to-day operations.Steve and Kate want to be protected from liability relative accidents to clients of the gym, and also want to be able to charge for any damage to gym equipment caused by clients.

They seek your advice as to whether the following two clauses in the membership agreement would be useful in achieving these results:

Clause 1. All clients entering this gym do so at their own risk. While all care will be taken, the Management ofPump it Up!will not be responsible for any injury whatsoever or howsoever occurring to any client entering into this gym, including any injury occurring because of any negligence of the staff ofPump it Up!.

and

Clause 2. Any breakage or damage to any goods or equipment within this gym caused by the client will be paid for by the client, however occurring. By using the gym, clients agree to this condition.

SteveandKateseek your advice as to whether they can claim there was no contract with TAR?

Relative toPump it Up!,Steveand Kate have asked for advice on the following:

a. Would these clauses be considered as effective exclusion clauses?

b. Will they achieve the result that Steve and Kate is hoping for?

c. Kate would like to put these two clauses on signs and seeks your advice as to where best to locate these signs.

d. Steve and Kate are also thinking of incorporatingPump it Up!. Would incorporation affect the enforceability of the above signs?