$12-3.$ Spotlight on Apple$-$Implied Warranties. Alan Vitt purchased an iBook G$4$ laptop computer from Apple, Inc. Shortly after the one$-$year warranty expired, the laptop stopped working due to a weakness in the product manufacture. Vitt sued Apple, arguing that the laptop should have lasted $"$at least a couple of years," which Vitt believed was a reasonable consumer expectation for a laptop. Vitt claimed that Apple's descriptions of the laptop as "durable," "rugged," "reliable," and "high performance" were affirmative statements concerning the quality and performance of the laptop, which Apple did not meet. How should the court rule? Why? $[$Vitt v$.$ Apple Computer, Inc., $469$ Fed.Appx. $605(9$th Cir. $2011)]($See Warranties.$)$