In Schuchmann V

In Schuchmann v. Air Services Heating and Air Conditioning a home owner bought a heating and A/C unit with a lifetime warranty. After five years the company refused to honor the warranty because it was too expensive. When the consumer sued, the courts held that:

A) since the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act does not supplement the definition of common law fraud there was a need to prove an intent to defraud or reliance and the company was not liable
B) the defendant failed to prove an intent to defraud or reliance and so the company was not liable
C) since the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act supplements the definition of common law fraud there was no need to prove an intent to defraud or reliance and the company was liable
D) the home owner did not maintain his air conditioning system properly, so the warranty was void and the company not liable
E) none of the other choices are correct