The Petals had a busy household with three young children and an active golden retriever. This past summer they decided to renovate their kitchen and living room, which required new flooring among other improvements. Based on the great online reviews of knowledgeable customer service, they choose to work with Richardson Flooring Ltd (RFL). Mr. Petal described to the salesperson, Andy, what type of floor they needed: "We need a floor that is durable, can withstand the scraps and scratches of three active young children and a dog! Oh, and must be pleasing to the eye." Andy recommended a product that would meet the Petals needs, stating: "This durable vinyl laminate, from the Everton Ci Floor Collection, will not only meet your needs, but exceed them! We recommend this product to families just like yours." The Petals purchased the recommended flooring. Soon after the flooring was installed, the Petals noticed that moving furniture across the floor caused serious scratching. Within two months of the installation the Petals also noticed that with normal wear and tear the overall condition of the floor seemed to deteriorate. The Petals contacted RFL and expressed their concerns and asked for a remedy. RFL refused, stating their concerns were not covered by the warranty of the product. The Petals brought an action against RFL. Question: - Identify the main legal issue, including the remedy being sought. - Describe a possible defence(s)? - Discuss the likely outcome of this case. - Identify ONE risk reduction strategy? (from the perspective of either party)