reliance. 4. Goodyear did not adequately disclaim its implied warranty of merchantability under Ohio law, because its disclaimer did not contain the word “merchantability.” 5. A genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether Goodyear conspicuously disclaimed its implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. 6. A genuine issue of material fact remains as to whether Goodyear’s disclaimer of liability fails of its essential purpose. 7. The court shall reserve judgment until trial as to whether Goodyear’s disclaimer of liability is unconscionable. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 . The parties, as well as the court, agree that the Ohio law governs all substantive issues in this case. See Klaxon v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co., 313 U.S. 487, 496, 61 S.Ct. 1020, 85 L.Ed. 1477 (1941) (<HOLDING>); Ohio Rev.Code § 1301.05 (providing that Ohio
holding that a federal district court sitting in diversity must follow the forums choice of law rules to determine the applicable statute of limitations period holding that in a diversity action a federal court must apply the law of the forum state holding in the conflict of laws context that district courts sitting in diversity jurisdiction must apply the substantive law of the forum state holding that a federal court sitting in diversity is bound to follow the law of the forum state holding that a federal district court sitting in diversity must apply its forum states choice of law rules