any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under the next section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose. Assuming all facts pled in their second cause of action are true, see Crow v. Giebelhaus, supra, the Cobbs’ operative petition fails to state a claim for implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The Cobbs’ second cause of action alleges: (1) Cobb contacted Dillman and requested that Eptam be used for a preemergent on the alfalfa seeding; (2) the Cobbs entered into a contract with Sure Crop “for the purpose of application of Eptam on 25 acres to be planted with 351 So. 2d 351 (Fla. App. 1977) (<HOLDING>); Patrick v. Sferra, 70 Wash. App. 676, 855
holding that ucc impliedwarranty action requires pleading of facts in respect to sale of goods holding that seller was entitled to recover contract price of goods where buyer failed to make effective rejection under the ucc holding that a statement of conditional sale of goods can be filed with the state auditor before the delivery of goods where statute says the statement must be filed within ten days of delivery of goods holding that a contract for the design construction and installation of a water tank was predominantly a contract for the sale of goods under the ucc holding that the installation of a burglar alarm system was a sale of goods within the meaning of the ucc 13 pa consstat  2105a