In Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, the court explained that the basis of the bargain rule changed warranty law so that it no longer required proof that the plaintiff relied upon specific promises made by the seller, but commentators disagreed about whether the change shifted the burden of proving non-reliance to the seller or entirely removed the reliance element from express warranty claims. (Hauter, 14 Cal.3d at pp. 115-116.) Hauter did not resolve the issue. (Id. at pp. 116-117.) A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict may be granted only if it appears from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict, that there is no substantial evidence in support. (Hauter v. Zogarts (1975) 14 Cal.3d 104, 110.) The moving party may appeal from the judgment or from the order denying the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or both. (Code Civ. Proc., 904.1, subd. (a)(4) making such an order appealable.) As in the trial court, the standard of review is whether any substantial evidence--contradicted or uncontradicted--supports the jury's conclusion. (Ibid.; Hauter v. Zogarts, supra, 14 Cal.3d at p. 111.)" The California Supreme Court set forth the rules circumscribing the trial judge's power to grant defendants' motion below: "The trial judge cannot weigh the evidence , or judge the credibility of witnesses. If the evidence is conflicting or if several reasonable inferences may be drawn, the motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict should be denied. 'A motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict of a jury may properly be granted only if it appears from the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party securing the verdict, that there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict. If there is any substantial evidence, or reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, in support of the verdict, the motion should be denied.' "