Application: By applying the above mentioned legal rules to the facts of this case, it can be said that JP’s Fitness Center had tried to exclude its liability by incorporating the term in the contract that provides that the fitness center cannot be considered as liable if any injuries suffered by a member as a result of the negligence of its employees or other members. However the effect of this clause needs to be considered in view of the provisions of Australian Consumer Law which provides that the guarantees provided by the ACL cannot be excluded by the parties by incorporating the terms of this effect in the contract (Paterson, Robertson and Duke, 2009). Section 60 of the ACL also requires that in case of a contract for the supply of services, there is an implied warranty according to which the services have to be supplied with you care and diligence. This warranty cannot be excluded by a term in the contract.
On the other hand, the position under the common law is that parties can rely on an exemption clause in such a clause has been incorporated properly and at the same time if the clause covers the matter in issue (Darlington Futures Ltd v Delco Aust Pty Ltd, 1986).
Conclusion: In the present case, it is clear that the provisions of ACL applied to the facts and as a result, JP’s Fitness Center cannot do the guarantees provided by the ACL. As a result, although the term has been incorporated properly and at the same time it covers the issue in dispute however in view of the statutory provisions, it can be said that JP’s Fitness Center cannot rely on this term in order to invade its liability regarding the injuries suffered by Rhonda as a result of unsafe equipment.