for requiring the notification to be a claim for damages or of any threatened litigation or other resort to a remedy. The notification which saves the buyer’s rights under this Article need only be such as informs the seller that the transaction is claimed to involve a breach, and thus opens the way for normal settlement through negotiation. Tex. Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 2.607(c)(1) comment D; Stickle v. Heublein, Inc., 716 F.2d 1550, 1560 (Fed.Cir.1983) (indicating that Texas law adopts this comment). Consequently, little more is required than for the claimant to indicate that there is a problem with the warranted product that is severe enough to potentially constitute a breach. See, e.g., Carroll Instrument Co., Inc. v. B.W.B. Controls, Inc., 677 S.W.2d 654, 657-58 (Tex.Ct.App.1984) (<HOLDING>). In this case, Plaintiff identified the
recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that where claimant complained of a problem and showed defendant a rusty part the requirement of notice was satisfied for a claim of breach of the warranty of fitness holding implied warranty of fitness for particular purpose cannot lie where goods were subject of gift rather than sale holding that first part of boggs test was satisfied where purported warranty language appeared in the declarations to the policy recognizing implied warranty against latent defects and of fitness of premises for lease purposes