With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". GET contends that the language to which plaintiff cites as creating a warranty comes from GET’s 1996 brochure, printed after plaintiffs return from his vacation. The question is whether a warranty was made to guarantee injury-free travel; and, if so, whether the disclaimer validly disclaims any liability for such warranty. A warranty is either an express or implied contractual term which deals with “some aspect of the sale, such as title to the goods, or their quality or quantity.” 3 B.E. Witkin, Summary of California Law § 50 (9th ed.1987). An express warranty is “any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain.” Hauter v. Zogarts, 14 Cal.3d 104, 115 n. 9, 120 Cal.Rptr. 681, 534 P.2d 377 (1975) (<HOLDING>). A warranty of merchantability is implied in

A: holding plaintiff was barred from seeking remedy because express warranty expired in accordance with time limits elucidated in the limited repair and replace warranty
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 warranty claim accrued at tender where 180 day warranty on computer not a warranty for future performance as it involved a remedy only
D: holding inter alia defendant breached implied warranty of merchantability where an express warranty regarding safety of goods was printed on package and where goods failed to conform to the express warranty
D.