Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): judgment to select suitable goods, so as to support liability under the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. See Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 2.315 (Vernon 1994). In addition, the implied warranty of merchantability does not apply in Texas to used goods which are purchased, as in this case, with knowledge that they are used. See Southerland v. Northeast Datsun, Inc., 659 S.W.2d 889, 891 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1983, no writ); Thornton Homes, Inc. v. Greiner, 619 S.W.2d 8, 9 (Tex.Civ.App.-Eastland 1981, no writ); Cheney v. Parks, 605 S.W.2d 640, 642 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1980, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Valley Datsun v. Martinez, 578 S.W.2d 485, 489 (Tex.Civ.App.-Corpus Christi 1979, no writ); Chaq Oil Co. v. Gardner Mach. Corp., 5 pp.3d 464, 710 N.E.2d 770, 771-73 (1998) (<HOLDING>); Restatement (Second) of Toets § 388 
 Holding statements: (A) holding supplier of compactor had no duty to warn worker or his employer of the availability andor need for a rops for the compactor because this was an open and obvious danger (B) holding that seller of frontend loader had no duty to warn injured worker concerning the dangers of operating the loader without a rops because the dangers were obvious under an objective standard (C) holding danger was so open and obvious to plaintiff that as a matter of law he knew or should have known of danger (D) holding under section 388 of the restatement seoond of torts defendants had no duty to warn injured tractor driver that tractor lacked a rops because this was an open and obvious danger (E) holding that a grocery store employer had no duty to warn an employee that placing his hand in the doorjamb of a customers car is an obvious danger
Output (English): holding danger was so open and obvious to plaintiff that as a matter of law he knew or should have known of danger