NEED HELP! Please

Your answer is very confused. I'm not going to help with substance, but you need to think more about structure. You are jumping about from one place to the next and taking the issues in a random order. You are also not dealing in a logical fashion with each individual issue.

I'd suggest picking one potential claim and dealing with it, then moving on to the next. Suppose you start with Maz Ltd's potential claim for damages for breach of contract (on the hypothesis, given in the question, that the strawberries are not organic). You should not be rushing headlong into discussing exclusion clauses. The exclusion clause is only even potentially relevant if (i) there is a contract; and (ii) there has been a breach of a term of that contract, (iii) Maz Ltd has suffered loss as a result of the breach. So as a matter of simple logic your discussion of whether there is a term that the strawberries are organic needs to precede any discussion of whether the exclusion clause is valid.

That is just one example and there are many problems with the order you tackle things in that paragraph.

Second, you seem to have a tendency to list everything you think might be vaguely relevant.



What? For staters, Maz Supermarket is not a natural person so it cannot possibly get any protection from those Regulations. Secondly, although I haven't done any consumer law in years, weren't those Regulations completely replaced by the Consumer Rights Act?

Third, you haven't separated out the need to state what the law is from the need to apply that law to the facts you are given. Have you learned a structure like IRA? State what the issue is, then what the rule (i.e. the law) is, then apply that law to your facts. This sentence, which seems to form an important part of whatever it is you are trying to say about misrepresentation, fails to do any of those things:



Another example since this is so important for getting a good mark:



This might get some way toward discussing the law, but it's not clear why the discussion is relevant and there is no attempt to apply it to the facts. Is there any ambiguity or vagueness in the exclusion clause? How might it be interpreted contra proferentem? Why have you discussed limitation clauses when the clause under discussion seems to me to be an attempt to completely exclude all liability?