14.  On or about June 15, 2014, Plaintiffs attended a timeshare sales presentation led by  agents of Defendant.   15.  During the timeshare sales presentation, Defendant's agents offered Plaintiffs the  purchase of a timeshare vacation ownership interest in exchange for valuable consideration, as  further described in the contract numbered 93-500300, with purchase price of $21,900.00 and an  additional amount of $524.06 owed for closing costs.   16.  Following the above-referenced timeshare sales presentation, Plaintiffs agreed to  and accepted Defendant's offer and thereafter entered into such contract and paid Defendant  valuable consideration for same, such being incorporated by reference herein.   17.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs possess an ownership interest the described timeshare  interest, located within Horry County, South Carolina.   19.  Further, such contract states specifically within its Paragraph 15 that it is to be  governed by South Carolina law.  a. Alternatively, should Florida law apply to said contract, Paragraph 15 is then false,  rendering such timeshare purchase contract voidable as being a misrepresentation  made to a timeshare purchaser in violation of the Timeshare Act.   20.  Plaintiffs allege that their subject contract fails to meet the requirements of the  Timeshare Act as follows:  a.  Fails to include the following specific language required by S.C. Code  Section 27-32-40:  28.  Defendant has acted (or failed to properly act) on grounds generally applicable to  the Class as a whole in that they have engaged in a routine and systematic course of conduct in  selling timeshares to Plaintiffs and Class Members pursuant to form contracts that violate the  Timeshare Act.     29.  Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of members of the proposed Class as all  claims are based on the same factual and legal theories.    30.  Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of Class Members and  Plaintiffs have no conflicts with the other members of the Class.   31.  Plaintiffs have retained as counsel attorneys that are experienced in timeshare law,  class action law, and complex litigation.   33.  Plaintiffs re-allege the paragraphs above as if fully restated herein and further state  as follows.   34.  Defendant and its agents are sellers of a vacation time sharing plan or are in the  business of selling interests in a vacation time sharing plan within the definition set forth in S.C.  Code § 27-32-10, et seq.   35.  The timeshare interest purchased by Plaintiffs, as set forth above, is part of a  vacation time sharing plan as defined in S.C. Code § 27-32-10, et seq.    36.  The timeshare interest purchased by Plaintiffs, as set forth above, was intended to  be part of a vacation time sharing plan as defined in the Timeshare Act, S.C. Code § 27-32-10, et  seq.   38.  Due to Defendant and its agents’ failure to meet all legal and statutory requirements  to engage in the sale of timeshare properties to the public, Defendant violated the Timeshare Act.   Violation of the South Carolina Vacation Time Sharing Plans Act  