With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". held that an action for breach of warranty was a contract action, and therefore governed by the statute of limitations for contract actions. The court explained that: [Wjhile an action for breach of a statutorily implied warranty of fitness may involve, incidentally, some showing of negligence, the contract breached is not merely one to use due care, but is a separate (implied) contract of guaranty that the goods are fit for the purpose for which they are bought and sold. Id., 305 N.Y. at 147 (emphasis added). The court overruled two earlier cases where lower courts had held that breach of warranty claims sounded primarily in tort for statute of limitations purposes. See Buyers v. Buffalo Paint & Specialties, Inc., 199 Misc. 764, 769-70, 99 N.Y.S.2d 713, 719 (Sup.Ct.Erie Co. 1950) (<HOLDING>); Schlick v. New York Dugan Bros., Inc., 175

A: holding that an action for the negligence of an architect in the performance of professional services is an action for breach of contract
B: holding that an action for consequential damages to property whether the action is brought in contract or in tort is an action for injury to property within the threeyear statute of limitations
C: holding that an employees action against her employer for negligent supervision lies not in tort but with an action for breach of contract
D: holding the twoyear period for filing a particular tort action such as assault and battery controls over the more general threeyear statute of limitations for tort actions
B.