Yong Cha Hong bought take-out fried chicken from a Roy Rogers Family Restaurant owned by the Marriott Corporation. While eating a chicken wing from her order, she bit into an object that she perceived to be a worm. Claiming permanent injuries and great physical and emotional upset from this incident, Hong sued Marriott in federal district court. She claimed that Marriott had breached the implied warranty of merchantability. After introducing an expert’s report opining that the object in the chicken wing was not a worm but was instead the chicken’s aorta or trachea, Marriott moved for summary judgment. What two alternative tests might the court have applied in deciding whether the chicken wing was merchantable? Which of the two alternative tests did the court decide to apply? Under that test, was Marriott entitled to summary judgment?