of constructive notice. Defendant’s second argument requires more discussion. District of Columbia cases show a tendency to merge claims for implied warranty of merchantability with strict liability. That is the second basis for Defendant’s argument to dismiss this count. In Cottom v. McGuire Funeral Service, Inc., 262 A.2d 807, 808 (D.C.1970), the court characterized the doctrines of implied warranty and strict liability in tort as “but two labels for the same right and remedy, as the governing principles are the same.” The reason why implied warranty merges with the strict liability claim is that both are based on the sale of a product alleged to be defective. (M.D. at 13.) Precedent supports the merging of these two claims: Bowler v. Stewart-Wamer Corp., 563 A.2d 344, 346 (D.C.1989) (<HOLDING>); MacPherson v. Searle & Co., 775 F.Supp. 417,
holding warranty liability and strict liability were both shown by proof a product was defective holding the learned intermediary doctrine as adopted by georgia courts insulated a defendant from liability for negligence strict liability and breach of implied warranty claims recognizing strict product liability actions holding that a commercial buyer of defective goods cannot maintain a strict liability or negligence suit for economic loss to the product as the remedy is a breach of warranty suit under the ucc holding that to prevail on strict liability claim for a defective product plaintiff must show the product was defective when it left the defendants possession and control