Gr-ka Yegorova bought a washing machine in the store. Three days later, during the first wash, the machine stopped working. Egorova demanded that the store manager exchange the washing machine for a similar suitable car. Since her request was not satisfied, Egorova instructed an independent expert organization to check the cause of the malfunction, and then went to court with a lawsuit to the store and demanded that she be provided with a new washing machine, collecting funds for expertise, compensation for moral harm. The examination revealed that the defect that appeared was not related to the operation and was of a hidden production nature. The defendant, objecting to the claim, indicated that: a) the plaintiff does not have a sales receipt confirming the fact of buying the car in a particular store. b) a manufacturing defect confirms the manufacturer’s fault, therefore, the manufacturer must answer. c) the expertise was made in the interests of the customer, which means that she bears the costs incurred.
Questions:
1. What evidence can be used to confirm the purchase of a washing machine in a particular store?
2. If the claim is satisfied, can Egorova count on giving her any new washing machine or washing machine of a certain model?
3. Reject or confirm the arguments of the defendant.
4. Is Egorova's claim subject to satisfaction?

After payment you will be available a link to the solution of this problem in the file of MS Word. It should be noted that the problem solutions put up for sale were successfully handed over in the period 2003-2018 and could be outdated. However, the general algorithm will always remain true.