With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". warranty of merchantability claim because no warranty attached to the custom designed Kona Pacific meal feed, which was for an unknown species and thus had no ordinary purpose. Plaintiff counters that a warranty attaches to all products, even those that are custom made. Plaintiff submits that the issue of whether the feed was defective or unfit for the ordinary purposes for which it was used is disputed. The implied warranty of merchantability is arguably the broadest warranty in the Uniform Commercial Code, and is “implied by operation of law into every sale of goods by a merchant seller.” Ontai v. Straub Clinic and Hosp. Inc., 66 Haw. 287, 249-50, 659 P.2d 734, 744 (1983) (citations omitted). Merchantability means, among other things, tha pp.3d 594, 798 N.E.2d 618, 624-25 (2003) (<HOLDING>). The Court does not refute that these cases

A: holding bottling company liable for breach of implied warranty of merchantability for presence of deleterious substance in product that resulted in consumers illness
B: holding that an implied warranty of merchantability does not create a labeling requirement different from or in addition to those mandated by fifra because the implied warranty of merchantability arises from the sale itself not from a state labeling regulation citation omitted
C: holding that granting of summary judgment was proper as to breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim because the product at issue was a newly created component made especially for the plaintiff and  no average or usual standards for determining ordinary performance or quality for the components eould be determined because the parts had never previously been manufactured
D: holding plaintiff had to commence his breach of implied warranty action under the dtpa within two years because tjhis special statute of limitations denies plaintiffs alternative proposal of entitlement to recover for breach of the common law implied warranty
C.