In December 2008, Corey and Jamie Baker purchased a TV from Best Buy as well as a four-year service contract for the TV. In November 2010, Best Buy determined that the problems the Bakers were having with the TV could not be fixed, so Best Buy replaced the TV with a comparable model. Best Buy told the Bakers that if they wanted the full protection on the replacement TV, they would need to buy a new four-year policy. The Bakers and others filed suit against Best Buy for consumer fraud and false statements in advertisements because the Bakers felt that the ads depicted the service agreement as being one of full protection for four years. Under the terms of the service contract purchased by the appellants, coverage under the plan was effective from the date the product was purchased and would expire four years from the effective date. But the next paragraph of the service contract adds that "[o]ur obligations under this Plan will be fulfilled in their entirety if we replace your product." The contract further stated "Limits of Liability," defining a limit of the lesser of repair or replacements and finally stating that "[i]n the event ... we replace the product, we shall have satisfied all obligations under the Plan." What should the court decide? Was there deception, or is the contract clear enough for buyers? Discuss the factors the court will consider in deciding whether there has been consumer fraud. [Baker v. Best Buy Stores, LP, 812 N.W.2d 177 (Minn. App.)]