Peter jimenez, a free-lance gaming consultant and blogger, was in need of a new gaming system for his business. after some lengthy review, peter decided to purchase a sony playstation 4 system for his business needs. weeks after the one-year warranty expired, peter’s sony playstation 4 failed to operate due to a flaw in the product manufacture. peter sued sony, making the argument that the gaming system should have lasted "at least a couple of years," which peter viewed as a reasonable consumer expectation for such an expensive gaming system. peter argued that sony’s description of the gaming system as "most reliable", and "durable", were affirmative statements concerning the quality and performance of the gaming system, which sony did not meet. how should the court rule? why? explain : 1.key facts and issues: 2.rules of law that apply to this case: 3.facts of this case: