(b) That's wrong. Section 36 of the ACL says that a person must not accept payment for goods or services if, at the time of accepting payment, they do not intend to supply them at all; or if they intend to supply something materially different from what is being paid for; or if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the goods or services cannot be supplied within the agreed time or within a reasonable time.

Section 36(4) says that once payment is accepted for goods or services, they must be supplied within the agreed time (or within a reasonable time if no particular time was agreed). Failure to do so is a breach of s 36(4), unless the failure was due to circumstances beyond the supplier's control, and the supplier had taken reasonable precautions to avoid the failure; or unless different goods or services are offered to the consumer as a replacement and are acceptable to the consumer.

In the present case, A has likely breached s 36 in various ways. He has no intention of supplying an 'Everest' ski suit to B and he appears to have intended to supply something materially different instead. A also knows that he will not be able to deliver the agreed goods within the agreed time, or within a reasonable time. This failure is not attributable to circumstances beyond A's control, and it cannot be argued that A took reasonable precautions against the failure. Furthermore, it is very unlikely that B will be willing to accept a substitute ski suit of lower quality. A's conduct therefore amounts to a breach of s 36(1), (2) (3) and (4).