in Carnival Cruise Lines, the Court held this disclaimer valid. Id. at 593, 111 S.Ct. at 1527. The contract clause in the instant case is of the same nature — a passage disclaimer — yet it meets a higher standard of notice than the disclaimer in Carnival Cruise Lines. Accordingly, inasmuch as it is such a disclaimer, it is valid. Moreover, the disclaimer in GET’s contract with Ramage does not affect a public interest, and is thus otherwise valid. 2. Breach of Warranty Plaintiff Ramage contends defendant GET expressly and impliedly breached its warran ty of merchantability to provide injury-free travel. GET responds that its 1995 brochure contained no such warrantie ry sale, unless excluded or modified. Dorman v. International Harvester, 46 Cal.App.3d 11, 17, 120 Cal.Rptr. 516 (1975) (<HOLDING>). A disclaimer of implied warranty of
holding buyer not entitled to rescission of sale based on unconscionability because of the coss as is clause which properly disclaims all express and implied warranties holding that an implied warranty of merchantability does not create a labeling requirement different from or in addition to those mandated by fifra because the implied warranty of merchantability arises from the sale itself not from a state labeling regulation citation omitted holding that plaintiffdistributor stated a claim for common law indemnification against defendantsmanufacturers based on warranties of suitability and merchantability since liability under an implied warranty theory is truly vicarious holding a provision in a contract for sale of a tractor disclaiming implied warranties of merchantability and fitness was not sufficiently conspicuous holding implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose cannot lie where goods were subject of gift rather than sale