Ruby Dempsey purchased a nine-week old pedigreed male poodle from the American Kennels Pet Stores. She named the poodle Mr. Dunphy. Dempsey later testified that before making the purchase, she told the salesperson that she wanted a dog suitable for breeding purposes. Five days after the sale, she had Mr. Dunphy examined by a veterinarian, who discovered that the poodle had one undescended testicle. This condition did not seriously affect Mr. Dunphy's fertility, but it was a genetic defect that would likely be passed on to any offspring he might sire. Also, a dog with this condition could not be used as a show dog.   Dempsey demanded a refund from American Kennels, but her demand was denied. She then sued in small claims court.

1. Would Dempsey win if she bases her claim on the implied warranty of merchantability? Why or why not?

2. Would Dempsey win if she bases her claim on the implied warranty of fitness? Why or why not?