Mrs. Dempsey paid $541 for a poodle named Mr. Dunphy. Unfortunately for Mr. Dunphy, he had an undescended testicle. Mrs. Dempsey could have "inspected" Mr. Dunphy but didn’t. After examinations by multiple veterinarians, Mr. Dunphy’s condition was confirmed. Mrs. Dempsey returned Mr. Dunphy to the seller and demanded her money back. The court began its analysis with, "The first test of merchantable quality is whether the goods ‘pass without objection in the trade under the contract description’ (U. C.C. Sec. 2- 314(2)(a)). This standard effectively sums up all of the various "definitions" of merchantable quality since the principal function of the warranty of merchantability has been to give legal effect to a buyer’s reasonable expectations based on trade understanding of the quality of goods normally supplied under such a contract. (51 N. Y.Jur, Sales Sec. 176)." Is an undescended testicle a breach of merchantability? [Dempsey v. Rosenthal,121 Misc.2d 612 (N. Y. 1983).]