In what circumstances will a plaintiff be able to sue a seed merchant who sells adulterated or defective seed?

6 Asgrow's argument, therefore, contrary to the trial court's finding that even absent an express agreement between buyer and seller there is a trade custom for seed merchants to disclaim or limit liability and that the system is founded upon 'sound policy' for the reason 'that the purchase price of seed is usually small compared to the value of the crop' and therefore if the seed manufacturer or merchant cannot protect himself by such disclaimers he would find it 'hard to survive the litigation that would come to his door' (see Hoover v. Utah Nursery Co., supra, 7 P.2d 270, 273) has no applicability. Nor do we accept the soundness of such reasoning. It is open to grave doubt whether the farmer's chances of survival exceed those of the seed manufacturer who sells the adulterated seed, and we perceive no reason why the latter should enjoy any court-made position in the field of the law of express and implied warranties more favorable than do other sellers. The codes make no such distinctions.