This language is drawn from section 2A-214 of Article 2A, not from section 2-316 of Article 2, of the Commercial Code.  Article 2A, which is not reproduced in these materials, governs leases of goods, whereas Article 2, which is reproduced in these materials, governs sales of goods.  The court is correctly applying Article 2A because the transaction at issue was a lease.  Article 2A was drafted many years after the drafting of Article 2.  It mimics (even duplicates) many of the Article 2 provisions, and also adds sections peculiarly applicable to leases. 

     Compare the language of 2A-214 quoted by the court with the language of U.C.C. 2-316(3)(a).  What difference in language, if any, do you see?  If there is a difference in language, does that suggest to you that the law concerning disclaimer of implied warranties in leases is different than the law concerning disclaimer of implied warranties in sales?