Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to build and repair the furnaces as promised under the warranty. This is precisely what Spectro claims in Counts 2, 6, and 10. There are cases in which a party may plead separate breach of contract and breach of warranty claims. See, e.g., Alcan Aluminum Corp. v. BASF Corp., No. 3:97-CV-1480-L, 2001 WL 1388872, *6, 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16807, *13-20 (N.D.Tex.2001) (“delivery of inferior goods or services equate to a warranty claim while delivery of nothing equates to a contract claim” and plaintiff “failed to establish that a genuine issue of material fact exists with respect to whether its breach of contract claim is distinct from its breach of warranty claims”); see also Reynolds Metals Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp., 758 F.2d 1073 (5th Cir.1985) (discussed at length in Alcan) (<HOLDING>); and see Rhode v. E & T Invs., Inc., 29 
 Holding statements: (A) 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 (B) holding that an agreement in which one party promised to make monthly payments to the other partys attorney as part of an asset sale contract was for the direct benefit of the attorney (C) holding that a warranty claim survived alongside a contract claim where a service was promised in addition to the sale of a good (D) holding that even though plaintiffs claim was barred by the cgia because it sounded in tort attorney fees were not appropriate where it was a contract claim that was pleaded and thus a contract claim that was dismissed (E) holding that the state law contract claim alleged the same conduct as in the erisa claim and was therefore preempted
Output (English): 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