With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". judgment to select suitable goods, so as to support liability under the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. See Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 2.315 (Vernon 1994). In addition, the implied warranty of merchantability does not apply in Texas to used goods which are purchased, as in this case, with knowledge that they are used. See Southerland v. Northeast Datsun, Inc., 659 S.W.2d 889, 891 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1983, no writ); Thornton Homes, Inc. v. Greiner, 619 S.W.2d 8, 9 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1981, no writ); Cheney v. Parks, 605 S.W.2d 640, 642 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Valley Datsun v. Martinez, 578 S.W.2d 485, 489 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1979, no writ); Chaq Oil Co. v. Gardner Mach. Corp., 5 pp.3d 464, 710 N.E.2d 770, 771-73 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Restatement (Second) of Toets § 388

A: holding under section 388 of the restatement seoond of torts defendants had no duty to warn injured tractor driver that tractor lacked a rops because this was an open and obvious danger
B: holding supplier of compactor had no duty to warn worker or his employer of the availability andor need for a rops for the compactor because this was an open and obvious danger
C: holding that seller of frontend loader had no duty to warn injured worker concerning the dangers of operating the loader without a rops because the dangers were obvious under an objective standard
D: holding danger was so open and obvious to plaintiff that as a matter of law he knew or should have known of danger
B.