Duall Building Restoration, Inc., brought an action against the property owner of 1143 East Jersey, alleging that the owner had failed to make the necessary payments specified in the parties’ painting contract. Duall had been contracted to restore the brick walls of the property. The painting job carried a five-year guarantee against peeling or flaking. The property owners counterclaimed, stating that the paint had been defectively applied. Duall had applied Modac paint to the walls, but the paint had peeled from the walls. A brochure for the paint indicated that it was fit for the specific purpose of waterproofing brick walls. The paint manufacturer had assured Duall that the paint would adhere to the brick walls. Who was responsible for the damage? Was this a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability? How do you think the court resolved the conflict?