6. A thirteen-year-old boy received a Golfing Gizmo-a device for training novice golfers-as a gift from his mother. The label on the shipping carton and the cover of the instruction booklet urged players to "drive the ball with full power" and further stated: "COMPLETELY SAFE BALL WILL NOT HIT PLAYER." But while using the device, the boy was hit in the eye by the ball. Should lack of privity be a defense to the manufacturer? The manufacturer argued that the Gizmo was a "completely safe" training device only when the ball is hit squarely, and-the defendant argued-plaintiffs could not reasonably expect the Gizmo to be "completely safe" under all circumstances, particularly those in which the player hits beneath the ball. What legal argument is this, and is it valid