MOOTING

Hey Everyone!, I reaaaaaally need some help!
I have a mooting oral assignment in a few days and need some help with a strong argument for Necessaries. I have already done the question although i fear it is not strong enough to earn me a 1st. I will put the question down below and i hope you all can help me with case arguments as well as solid arguments in order to make this a good moot. Thanks All!!!
P.S: Iam the respondent and i am agreeing with the decision of the trial judge.

QUESTION:
Tom Jones, a bright and talented teenager, started his course at the Cambridge City University on 1 September. Tom celebrated his seventeenth birthday the week before he started his course. Tom is an only child and his doting parents bought him a new car just before he started university, even though the Cambridge City University expressly excludes the use of cars by students. Tom also receives very generous funding from his parents and likes to have the best of everything. He has a laptop computer and a tablet and the most expensive iphone on the market. His parents have rented a large flat for him with panoramic views of Cambridge. During Freshers’ week Tom sees a sign displayed in the window of the University bookshop, Rose Books Ltd. It reads ‘The Pink Panther 24R laptop at the unbelievable price of £1,000; pay nothing before the end of September’. One of Tom’s friends, a third year law student called Sally, tells him that he will not have to pay for the computer as he is a minor. Tom then goes in and buys one of the computers. Unfortunately Tom spends most of his money on expensive trips on the river Cam for himself and his large group of friends. When Rose Books Ltd contact him at the end of September Tom refuses to pay for his computer or return it to them.
Rose Books Ltd sues Tom Jones.

The trial judge found:

1. It was not a contract for necessaries and was unenforceable against a minor. The principle set out in Nash v Inman [1908] 5 KB 1 applied.

2. The Court would not exercise its statutory discretion to return the property acquired under the contract.

Rose Books Ltd now appeals to the Court of Appeal on the following grounds:

1. It was a valid contract for necessaries.

2. In the alternative, the Court should exercise its statutory discretion Under s.3(1) of the Minors’ Contracts Act 1987 and require the respondent to return the property acquired under the contract.