Please answer roughly in this format:1. put the facts into the question 2. What defenses the parties can use3. What laws could the defense4.what laws could the other party use to reply to the defense6. Put it all together

PETE decided to buy a car. He went to ABC Motors in search of a car. While looking around at ABC, JOHN, a salesperson for ABC approached PETE and got him interested in a 2020 ARROW automobile. JOHN told PETE that the car had only "15,000 original miles" and was in "perfect running condition." PETE asked JOHN if the car had ever been in an accident. JOHN told PETE that the car was the " straightest ARROW in town" and that PETE should have "no problems with the car for at least four (4) years." Based upon JOHN's information, PETE decided to buy the car and, PETE signed a written contract which contained, in conspicuous language, the following information: 'Buyer buys car "AS IS" and "WITH ALL FAULTS" As PETE was driving the car home, the car started to sputter, and smoke and finally died. PETE had the car towed to a garage where the mechanic, an expert, told him the following information about the car: "The engine was worn out and had about 98,000 miles on it. The car had been in a serious accident and the frame was still badly bent." PETE took the car back to ABC Motors and demanded his money back. ABC refused to do so, pointing out that PETE had signed a contract which contained the words "Buyer buys car "AS IS" and "WITH ALL FAULTS". PETE then proceeded to sue ABC Motors and JOHN to return his money. In answering this Question, ASSUME THAT PETE CAN NOT PROVE FRAUD OR MISREPRESENTATION ON THE PART OF ABC OR ITS SALESPERSON, JOHN. First Question - PETE vs. ABC and JOHN (PETE trying to get Money back) On what Legal Grounds could PETE sue ABC and JOHN. Assume that PETE can not prove fraud or misrepresentation against either ABC or its salesperson, JOHN. Set forth any and ALL Defenses ABC could attempt to use to avoid having to return PETE's money to him. Set forth the exact LAW(s) that ABC and JOHN could use to support their Defenses that they don't have to pay PETE any money. Second Question -- PETE vs. ABC and JOHN (PETE's Responses to ABC's and JOHN's Defenses) What would be PETE's responses (Defenses) against any of ABC's and JOHN's Defenses, that PETE could argue in order to get his money back? Set forth the exact LAW(s) that PETE could use to support his position. ALSO, set forth and discuss each fact that PETE could use as PROOF to support his claims or Grounds. Who should prevail in this Lawsuit, ABC or PETE? Set forth the exact LAW(s) that pertain to either Party's claims