helpBased on two cases below.suggest the appropriate detences which may be

raised.please include the references link.

CASE $1$

Woed $8$ Wood v$.$ TUl Travel PLC T$/$A First Choice $[2017]$ is a consumer case. $11$

EWCA Civ.

First Choice, the Dominican Republic package vacation provider, supplied and

organised round$-$trip airfare, hotel transfers, lodging, meals, and drinks for the $"$al

inclusive" two$-$week vacation that Mr$.$ and Mrs$.$ Woods are planning.

Woods' claim that they ate only from the hotel's buffet was upheid by the court at first

instance. The court found that the tainted food and drink served at the hotel was the

direct cause of the gastroenteritis that Mr$.$ and Mrs$.$ Wood suffered from. According to

the judgement, the provision of food and drink to the Woods might be seen as an

agreement for the sale of commodities under the Act. The court found that Woods may

claim damages under section $4(2)\text{'}$s implied necessity of "satisfactory quality" since

their food and drink were contaminated, On the other hand, if the meal had simply

been provided as a service, then the only implicit requirement under s$.13$ would be

one of reasonable care and competence. Mr$.$ Wood received $$16,500$ in damages and

Mrs$.$ Wood $7,500.$

On appeal, First Choice maintained that the Acts implicit requirement in subsection

$4(2)$ did not constitute a term of the contract because:

Goods transfer could not have been a part of the original intent of the contract,

which was to provide services.

The ownership of the commodities was not transferred to the Woods by First

Choice. Prior to consumption, the food and drink belonged to the hotel Once

eaten, they were destroyed.

CASE $2$

Harrison V Janged Globe Ltd

With the help of Jagged Glob $($Alpine$)$ Limited, climber Natalle Harrison travelled to

Ecuador on an adventure. She was involved in two accidents while on the excursion.

At the outset, she hurt herself when she fell while carrying out a stunt devised by the

expedition's commander, Sir Ranulph Fiennes. In the second incident, which occurred

at an apartment complex in Cortu, she dove into a small pool and suffered serious

injuries. An implicit element of her contract with the defendant was that the facilities

and services at the apartments would be provided with reasonable skill and care. She

argued that the absence of signs informing visitors that the pool vras shallow and that

diving was risky violated this requirement.