With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". our Supreme Court upheld the application of a claim for implied warranty of merchantability against a soda bottler who sold a soda to the retailer that sold the soda to the plaintiff. However, unlike Taco Bell in this case, the Supreme Court pointed out in Tedder that “[o]nly the bottler and the plaintiff actually handled the drink,” id. at 305, 154 S.E.2d at 340, and that the defective soda was contaminated when it was provided by the bottler to the retailer (i.e. when it left the control of the bottler). Nonetheless, the trooper contends that he may maintain an action against Taco Bell, regardless of privity, under the North Carolina Products Liability Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 99B-1 et seq. (1999). See Morrison v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 319 N.C. 298, 303, 354 S.E.2d 495, 498 (1987) (<HOLDING>). However, G.S. § 99B-3 generally abolishes

A: holding that no products liability claim lies in admiralty when commercial party alleges injury only to product itself resulting in purely economic loss insofar as the tort concern with safety is reduced when an injury is only to the product itself
B: holding that a commercial buyer of defective goods cannot maintain a strict liability or negligence suit for economic loss to the product as the remedy is a breach of warranty suit under the ucc
C: holding that a cause of action on the theory of strict liability may be properly pled by alleging 1 the manufacturers relationship to the product in question 2 the unreasonably dangerous condition of the product and 3 the existence of a proximate causal connection between the condition of the product and the plaintiffs injury
D: holding that an action for breach of implied warranty of merchantability under the uniform commercial code is a product liability action within the meaning of the products liability act if as here the action is for injury to person or property resulting from a sale of a product
D.