Jordan (1^st Party - Offeree) is a passionate drinker and fond to try out red wines. He went to a shop in selling wines.

The salesman, Travis (2^nd Party - Offeror) showed him those wines and explained the backdrop between.  Jordan insists in only drinking wines originality from South of French and made know to Travis (2^nd Party - Offeror) that he will not accept red wines manufactured in any other countries.  Travis (2^nd Party - Offeror) assured that the bottle that Jordan (1^st Party - Offeree) is holding is distilled in South of French, and Jordan (1^st Party - Offeree) purchased 3 bottles of the same.

Travis (2^nd Party - Offeror) issued Jordan (1^st Party - Offeree) with a receipt with a statement on it saying that "Products sold are not refundable nor the seller responsible for the safety of the products."

The following weekend, Jordan (1^st Party - Offeree) invited his close friends to his home to enjoy the 3 bottles of red wines, and they are down with severe diarrhea thereafter.  Subsequent checks found out that these red wines are bootleg (illicit) drinks.

Q1) Explain the elements to the formation of the contract between the parties. Conclusion is there is a contract - 2 or max 3 law cases.  Need to discuss on invitation to Treat citing Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Boots Cash Chemicals (1952).

Q2) What statutory provisions are Travis (2^nd Party - Offeror) contravening under the Sale of Goods Act (SGA)? Need to discuss Section 13, 14(2), (2B), (3), Exclusion of implied terms: Section 6 (1) (a) & Section 6 (2) (a) and also UCTA Cap 396 citing Harlingdon& Leinster Enterprises Ltd v Christopher Fine Art Ltd (1991) and Frost v Aylsbury Dairy Co Ltd (1905).

Q3) Discuss the validity and enforceability of the statement printed on the receipt?

Q4) Can Jordan's friends (3^rd Party) pursue liability with Travis (2^nd Party - Offeror) under contract? If yes, what are the provisions for recourse? Otherwise, suggest an appropriate cause of action? Need to discuss on Negligence such as Duty of Care, foreseeability of harm proximity, Breach of duty by the defendant (Travis - 2^nd Party Offeror) using Reasonable Test, Losses / Damages (Unwell) arising from the breach using causation: "but for test" and "Remoteness of harm" and lastly defendant has no valid defences - plaintiff to prove damages?