Does possible misuse constitute a waiver of the implied warranties? Consider the case of a lessee of a car who after 18 months found the car was running roughly. When taking the car back to the dealership, the lessee was told that several valves in the engine were bent due to misuse by the lessee. The lessee refused to pay the bill of $500+, claiming that it should be covered under the warranties. The car dealership's position was that misuse constituted a waiver of the warranties. [LaBella v. Charlies Thomas, Inc., and Mercedes-Benz of North America,942 S.W2d 127.]

I need to figure out the court's decision and the rule of law it involves, stating:

A.the principle, standard, or rule which applies in this case.Explain the rule of law.

B.how the rule of law is supported or negated by the facts in the case.