The Top End Runner’s Club is holding a ‘fun run’ over 10 kilometers through the streets of Darwin city to raise money for a new club house. Under the proposal, runners are sponsored by interested persons on the basis that they will pay their chosen runner a certain amount of money for completion of the run or for every kilometer covered.
Dave is a supporter of the Club and is interested in sponsoring a runner. Three days prior to the run, while dining at Casuarina, he sees Wendy and asks her whether she will be participating in the fun run. When Wendy says that she is thinking about it, Dave says to her that he will sponsor her for the sum of $3,000 if she decides to participate and if she takes one hour to complete the run. Wendy smiles and says: “Thank you. That sounds very generous”.
Later that day, Wendy meets her old friend Bill and tells him of her conversation with Dave. She says that his offer has inspired her to participate in and complete the run. Wishing to further encourage her, Bill tells Wendy that if she does decide to complete the run and if she thinks that she needs new running clothes and shoes, he will pay for them.
The next day Wendy purchases very expensive running shoes and clothes for a total value of $2,000. Subsequently, she completes the fun run in 58 minutes.
When she approaches Dave after the run, Dave finds that he is a little short of money. He tells Wendy that he has no legal obligation to pay her and, in any event, he says that she had to take one hour to complete the run whereas she completed it in 58 minutes. He refuses to pay her. When she approaches Bill and tells him that the cost of the clothing and shoes was $2,000, he says that he did not expect her to purchase such an expensive outfit and he, also, refuses to pay her.
She brings action against Dave and Bill, claiming $3,000 and $2,000, respectively, against them. Both Dave and Bill resist the claims.
Dave and Bill seek your advice as to whether she will succeed in making these claims against them.
Dani owned an old, but valuable Mercedes car. She wanted the car upholstery to be restored to its original condition. She searched the web for a good, reliable upholsterer who had experience with old cars. She saw the web page of “Vintage Upholsterers” [Vintage], which included the statement that all of the staff were highly qualified and experienced and every care was taken in carrying out work.
Dani took her car to Vintage and asked about their experience in carrying out work on cars such as hers. She also asked about the quality of their work, saying that she wanted her car restored to its original condition. She showed them some pictures of what the upholstery looked like in its original condition. Dani was told that the firm’s trades people were ‘first class’ and that one of them, Carl, had worked on Mercedes cars in Germany. She was told that Carl would be put in charge of upholstering her car.
Dani agreed to having Vintage undertake the work and she signed a document headed ‘Agreement’. The document comprised one page and included the following clause:
“While every care is taken with the work undertaken, Vintage Upholsterers cannot accept responsibility for any damage to goods or for any defect in work completed. All warranties are hereby excluded.”
The same clause appeared on a sign next to the counter in Vintage’s workshop. While Dani did see the sign, she could not read it from where she was standing.
When the upholstery of her Mercedes was completed, Dani discovered that the quality of the work was poor and that it looked quite unlike the pictures that she had shown Vintage prior to commencement of the work. She also discovered that while Carl had supervised the commencement of the work, he had left on holidays when it was only half completed.
Dani wants your advice as to whether she has any remedy against Vintage. Advise her.