Vito Gasparino, a free$-$lance gaming consultant and blogger, was in need of a new gaming system for his business. After some lengthy review, Vito decided to purchase a Nintendo Switch gaming system for his business needs. Weeks after the one$-$year warranty expired, Vito$$s Nintendo Switch failed to operate due to a flaw in the product manufacture. Vito sued Nintendo, making the argument that the gaming system should have lasted $$at least a couple of years,$$ which Vito viewed as a reasonable consumer expectation for such an expensive gaming system. Vito argued that Nintendo$$s description of the gaming system as $$most reliable$,$ and $$durable$,$ were affirmative statements concerning the quality and performance of the gaming system, which Nintendo did not meet. How should the court rule? Why?