Liz’s father, Mike, decided to help his daughter to sell her car by arranging for part of the car’s bodywork to be re-sprayed. He agreed to pay Nigel £800 to do the work. However, after work on the car had started, Nigel told Mike that more preparation was required than he had expected, and that he would need to be paid an extra £200. Mike refused to pay the extra, and Liz had to do so to get the car back. When it was returned, there were some paint stains on the car seats. Nigel pointed out that a notice at his cash desk clearly stated that he accepted no liability for any damage caused to vehicles whist on his premises. Liz advertised the car (which was four years old) for sale in a newspaper, stating that it had a ‘full service history’. Peter inspected the car and agreed to buy it for $4500. After Peter had paid and had been given all the documents, he discovered that there was no service record for one year. Without the full service history, the car was worth £500 less than he had paid for it. Liz insisted that, when she bought it, the record for that year had been complete, but she was unable to find it. Peter decided that he did not want the car. (a) Discuss the rights, duties and remedies of Liz, of Mike and of Nigel in connection with the agreement for the re-spraying of Liz’s car, and the damage to the seats. (b) Having regard to the relevant rules on misrepresentation and on breach of contract, consider the rights and remedies which may be available to Peter in connection with his purchase of the car from Liz. Course: Higher Education Foundation Programme (HEFP) Law