A Pty Ltd builds a new shopping mall in Melbourne, Victoria. B, of B Pty Ltd, a retailer of fashion clothing, is interested in opening a shop in the mall. B discusses his idea with X, a director of A Pty Ltd. The director tells B that A Pty Ltd has done a survey of the types of business best suited to the mall. He says a shop specialising in fashion clothing was found to be highly desirable. The director also tells B that only two shops in the mall remain available for lease.

Encouraged by these statements, B signs a lease for premises in the mall. The written lease contains no mention of the statements made by the director.

In due course, B opens his shop. Then B discovers that the director's statements were untrue. The so-called 'survey' was based only on the director's own observations of the locality and what type of shop he thought might do well. And, when he said most of the shops were already let, only three of 25 shops had definitely been let. B's shop does badly over the next two months, generating only half of the turnover needed to cover the overheads. Within six months B's business fails.

Does s 18 of the ACL provide B with relief in these circumstances?

This example is based on Musca v Astle Corp Pty Ltd (1988) 80 ALR 251.