With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". § 2.608 (Vernon 1994). However, the revocation finding applied only to MVI, not to Tire-Tech. As part of this finding, the jury affirmed that MVI had been timely notified about the revocation of acceptance. While this notice of revocation likely negated the need to provide MVI with any additional notice for the breach of warranty claim, it in no way served to give Tire-Tech notice of any alleged breach. Boeran presented no evidence that it directly gave Tire-Tech notice prior to filing suit. Boeran notified MVI, and MVI later informed Tire-Tech of a problem in the Netherlands without identifying Boeran. This notice to MVI, however, does not satisfy Boeran’s notice requirement toward Tire-Tech. See Comtek v. Suzuki Motor Co., 174 Ill.2d 482, 221 Ill. Dec. 389, 675 N.E.2d 584, 590 (1996) (<HOLDING>). The manufacturer must be made aware of a

A: holding that generalized notice of copyright infringements was insufficient to establish knowledge for the purpose of contributory liability
B: holding manufacturers generalized knowledge of concerns insufficient to meet ucc notice requirement
C: holding that notice of judgment was insufficient
D: holding that a generalized suspicion of those questioned in highcrime area was insufficient to justify terry frisk
B.