for the negligence of other suppli ers of services. GET cites several out-of-state eases which affirm that tour operators are not hable for the negligence of hotels. Third, GET argues that it did not guarantee a trip free from harm caused by third parties, and that GET had no duty to do so. Ramage’s claim that GET breached a warranty regarding the quality of coaches fails because Ramage does not and cannot point to any explicit warranty. Moreover, GET argues the tour brochure contains no warranty whatsoever. The general language which appears in the GET travel brochure which mentions “executive motorcoaches” and “experienced European coach drivers” does not constitute a warranty that no harm will befall tour participants. Lavine v. General Mills, Inc., 519 F.Supp. 332 (N.D.Ga.1981) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, the language Ramage quotes as
holding that probation does not constitute a sentence holding that likelihood of irreparable harm must be based on evidence in the record not unsupported and conclusory statements regarding harm the plaintiff might suffer holding that monetary damages do not generally constitute irreparable harm holding that to constitute persecution harm must be more than harassment holding that a general promise that a trip will be safe and reliable does not constitute a guarantee that no harm would befall plaintiff