element of unconscionability has been met. In particular, Smith offers no evidence to show he lacked other options for purchasing vehicles from other manu facturers or for obtaining additional warranty protection from Ford. See Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. v. Super. Ct., 211 Cal.App.3d 758, 768, 259 Cal.Rptr. 789 (1989) (finding “claim of oppression may be defeated if the complaining party had reasonably available alternative sources of supply from which to obtain the desired goods ... free of the terms claimed to be unconscionable”). Indeed, Smith acknowledges extended warranty options were available from Ford and that he chose not to purchase any such extended warranty. (See Smith Dep. at 20:15-21:18, 51:14-52:18); see also Berenblat v. Apple, Inc., 2010 WL 1460297, *4-5 (N.D.Cal.2010) (<HOLDING>). Nor does Smith offer any evidence to show he
holding that warranty claim accrued at tender where 180 day warranty on computer not a warranty for future performance as it involved a remedy only holding plaintiffs were not foreclosed from pursuing ucc remedies outside of written warranty because warranty notice provision did not specify that the remedies provided were exclusive of any other remedy holding that subse quent purchaser was entitled to protections of express written warranty but could not assert claim for implied warranty because complaint did not allege privity between purchaser plaintiff and defendant honda holding inter alia defendant breached implied warranty of merchantability where an express warranty regarding safety of goods was printed on package and where goods failed to conform to the express warranty holding on motion to dismiss plaintiffs failed to allege oppression where despite nonnegotiability of warranty terms plaintiffs did not allege they lacked other options for purchasing laptop computers or for obtaining additional warranty protections from defendant itself