Gitas car had broken down. Attempts were made to fix it on the side of the road, but eventually it became obviously that it was going to have to be towed to a garage for repairs. Gita arranged for AMC Motors to get the vehicle towed to its premises for repairs. When the vehicle was picked up by the tow truck, the driver asked Gita to sign an authorisation to pick up the car, deliver it to AMC Motors and carry out the repairs. One of the terms of the contract stated: The company is not responsible for damage caused bu fire o customers car on the premises. While at the garage, Gitas car was extensively damaged by fire as a result of the negligence of one of AMC Motors mechanics.

AMC Motors replied on the exclusion clause to provide a defence. Explain whether you think it would be successful.

1) In not more than 1,000 words, answer the above legal case question using the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion) method.

2) Your answer must be supported by relevant law and cases decided by Australian courts (preferably the High Court) and/or scholarly articles. A minimum of three scholarly, genuine and relevant references are required for this part of the report.