With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Jones immediately resigned and Restaurant Management accepted his resignation. The record also shows that Restaurant Management investigated whether there was any other employee involvement and found that Jones had acted alone. Since the record fails to forecast evidence that Restaurant Management ratified the actions of Jones, the trial court properly granted summary judgment on this issue. C. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability The trooper next argues that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to Restaurant Management as to his claim for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. We agree. The nature of a claim for breach of an implied warranty of merchantability is contractual. See Tedder v. Bottling Co., 270 N.C. 301, 304, 154 S.E.2d 337, 339 (1967) (<HOLDING>). In general, a retailer impliedly warrants

A: 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
B: holding bottling company liable for breach of implied warranty of merchantability for presence of deleterious substance in product that resulted in consumers illness
C: 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
D: 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
B.