Legal Question in Consumer Law in North Carolina

It is difficult to answer this question without knowing the materials used in your class, and the materials to which you have access. The thrust of this question seems directed at the element of this crime consisting of a scheme devised or intending to defraud or for obtaining money or property by fraudulent means. There also appear to be sub-issues here, such as whether "good faith" is a defense. You probably want to review your text book as well as your notes from class, and of course you can research these issues on the internet (and there are some good sources out there). Some courts have found that "good faith" is a defense to this offense, but the law from different jurisdictions is likely to vary. The crime seems to require an intent to defraud, and hence "good faith" (defined as a lack of intent to defraud) would seem to be a good defense generally. (But of course, this is not necessarily a true "defense," but is rather a way of disproving the intent to defraud.) As a factual matter, two things are striking: First, it is not clear how a consumer would interpret the phrase "miniature audiovisual receiver"; if this is not a small TV, then what else would it be? This seems to favor the vendor here. Second, one must wonder why they would refer to a TV as a "miniature audiovisual receiver" unless their intent was to defraud; in common speech (and advertising) we normally use the simplest and most common way of describing an item. This issue tends to harm the vendor. You probably want to think about these sorts of arguments and incorporate them in your answer.