With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". breach of warranty and negligence, plaintiff seeks damages in excess of $100,000 against GET. Defendant GET has filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment for both of the causes plaintiff Ramage has claimed. In ruling on the motion, the Court grants summary judgment in GET’s favor, finding, that defendant is not liable for either breach of warranty or negligent selection. III. PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS A. Defendant GET’s Moving Papers Defendant GET argues that plaintiff Ram-age is not entitled to bring claims against GET for breach of warranty and negligence because Ramage signed a disclaimer stating that GET would not be hable for the disclaimers for the negligence of suppliers are binding. Corby v. Kloster Cruise Ltd., No. C-89-4548 MHP (ARB), 1990 WL 488464 (N.D.Cal. Oct. 5, 1990) (<HOLDING>). Second, GET argues even absent the

A: holding similar language to be a valid disclaimer
B: holding that a standard form disclaimer for negligence of thirdparty tour operators which appeared on plaintiffs cruise ticket was valid as a disclaimer
C: holding that a standard form forumselection clause which appeared on plaintiffs passenger ticket was valid as a disclaimer
D: holding that the language in the lease agreement for computer accounting programs was an effective disclaimer of an implied warranty but for language in a statement of installation conditions which document created a genuine issue of material fact as to disclaimer
B.