With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". interest involved here. 23 . Although the distinctions in Moscatiello noted by ADT are correct, there are other distinctions that are more significant to the Superior Court's resolution of the issues. For example, Moscatiello involved the enforceability of both a disclaimer of warranties provision and limitation of remedies provision. 595 A.2d at 1194-95. These provisions were contained in a written sales contract (albeit a standard purchase agreement) for the sale of goods and thus were subject to Article 2 of the UCC. Section 2316(b) which governs a disclaimer of warranties and requires that the disclaimer be conspicuous, does not apply to limitation of remedy provisions, which are governed by Section 2719. See Borden, Inc. v. Advent Ink Co., 701 A.2d 255, 264 (Pa.Super.Ct.1997) (<HOLDING>). Nonetheless, the court in Moscatiello appears

A: holding that there was no requirement under article 2 of the ucc that limitation of liability provision contained in a contract for the sale of goods must be conspicuous citing jim dan inc v om scott  sons co 785 fsupp 1196 wdpa1992
B: holding that a contract for the design construction and installation of a water tank was predominantly a contract for the sale of goods under the ucc
C: holding that ucc impliedwarranty action requires pleading of facts in respect to sale of goods
D: holding a provision in a contract for sale of a tractor disclaiming implied warranties of merchantability and fitness was not sufficiently conspicuous
A.