Which of the following best expresses the court's ruling in the case nugget Jackson v. Bumble Bee Seafoods, Inc., in which the plaintiff sued after small fish bones were found in canned tuna fish eaten by the plaintiff?
A) That the plaintiff could not recover because the bone was not a foreign substance to the fish and should have been expected.
B) That the plaintiff could recover based upon the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.
C) That the plaintiff could recover based on an express warranty.
D) That the plaintiff could recover based upon the implied warranty of merchantability because even though bones are not a foreign substance in fish, they are not expected in small pieces of tuna fish.
E) That the plaintiff could not recover because no food has warranties attached to it.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The court ruled that the plaintiff could not recover because the bone was not a foreign substance to the fish and should have been expected, indicating that the presence of small fish bones in canned tuna does not constitute a breach of warranty or product defect under the circumstances described.

Which of the Following Best Expresses the Court's Ruling in the Case