Several years ago, I prepared a podcast attempting to explore a bit more carefully than did the Two Wheels court, the arguments of the defendant in that case. If nothing else, the podcast provides you with an example of building legal arguments based upon statutes. These were my introductory notes to that podcast.

A Note on Two Wheels (2007)
We looked at one provision of the New York General Business Law dealing with the problem of vendors who take advantage of situations of unusually high demand (sometimes caused by acts of nature) to increase their profits. Interpretation of both 2-302 and these more specific state laws requires both that the rules set down by the statute are articulated as clearly as possible and that the application of these rules to specific factual situations be as clear (and as predictable) as possible. The members of our class that responded to my questioning of the court's analysis of the New York General Business Law in the Two Wheels case by speaking strongly in favor of the court's interpretation of the statute and application to the facts presented. I thought you might like to consider at some greater length the losing arguments made by counsel for the defendant - losing, but not necessarily wrong. If you click on the podcast link, you can hear me reviewing those arguments - not to persuade you that the court was wrong in its result, but to explore further the arguments of counsel in the light of the applicable provisions of the New York General Business Law.
Two Wheels Podcast