Task 2 Jone organised with "Family Friendly Adventures" to take his family on an overnight desert adventure. Promised activities on this adventure include bushwalking, camping, abseiling, and river fishing. During the desert adventure a number of things went wrong. Jone became ill and could not continue with the trip. He suspects this was due to the food that was provided by Family Friendly Adventures for lunch. Jone's children, Max and Amos, were hurt during an abseiling activity. They both suffered cuts and bruises and Amos suffered concussion. The injuries to the children were caused in part because they refused to follow the safety instructions provided by the supervisors of the abseiling activity. Advise Family Friendly Adventures, Jone and his family of any rights or liabilities they may have in the tort of negligence and discuss the likelihood of success of each of these actions and appropriate defences which may be raised. Note: Task 2 shall be supported by at least two decided cases with relevant principles of law. Please relate the case above with two cases below include the references. Case 1 Wood & Wood v. TUI 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 "all inclusive" two-week vacation that Mr. and Mrs. Woods are planning. Woods' claim that they ate only from the hotel's buffet was upheld 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)'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,( Hill Dickinson, 2017, Jan 31). On appeal, First Choice maintained that the Act's 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 Jagged Globe Ltd With the help of Jagged Glob (Alpine) Limited, climber Natalie 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 Corfu, 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 was shallow and that diving was risky violated this requirement,( Harrison v Jagged Globe Ltd, 2012).