(a) That's wrong. Chapter 2, Part 2-3 of the ACL regulates the inclusion of unfair terms in standard form consumer contracts and and small business contracts.

For the purposes of these provisions, consumer contracts are defined in s 23 as contracts for the supply of goods or services, or for a sale or grant of an interest in land, to an individual who is acquiring them predominantly for their own personal, domestic or household use or consumption. The price paid by the consumer is not taken into account for the purposes of defining a consumer contract.

Small business contracts are contracts for a ‘supply of goods or services’, or a ‘sale or grant of an interest in land’, where at least one party to the contract is a business that employs fewer than 20 persons (excluding irregular casual employees) and either the upfront price payable under the contract does not exceed $300,000;  or the contract has a duration of more than 12 month and the upfront price payable under the contract does not exceed $1,000,000.

The contract must be a standard form contract. In general terms, a standard form contract is one in which one of the parties has most of the bargaining power, and prepares the terms on which they are prepared to deal without giving the other party any reasonable opportunity to discuss or negotiate the terms. The terms are presented on a 'take it or leave it' basis, with no account being taken of the individual circumstances of the particular transaction. If one party alleges that the contract they entered was a standard form contract, the other party is required to disprove that fact.

Taking account of the facts in the present case, it seems likely that the store owner could show that this was not a standard form contract. It follows that, even though the contract would qualify as a consumer contract, it would not be one in which unfair terms were regulated by the ACL.