The plaintiff , Betty Epstein, visited a beauty parlor to get her hair dyed. In the dying process, the beautician used a prebleach solution manufactured by Clairol, Inc., and then a commercial dye manufactured by Sales Affiliate, Inc. The treatment went awry, and the plain- tiff suffered severe hair loss, injuries to both hair and scalp, and some disfigurement. She sued the beauty salon, Clairol, and Sales Affiliate under Article 2 of the UCC. The defendants claimed that the contract was predominantly for services rather than for the sale of a good. How would you construct arguments supporting each side? What difference does it make whether the beauty treatment was a good or a service?
Answer to relevant QuestionsA manufacturer based in Argentina and an importer based in New Jersey entered into an oral agreement under which the importer agreed to sell the manufacturer's products in the United States. The district court found that the ...A restaurant called "The Inn Between" entered into a contract to purchase a used restaurant computer sys- tem. The contract included installation and training from Remanco Metropolitan, Inc. The contract also required that ...David Cooper purchased a computer and software for his supermarket business. He was using a soft- ware program recommended and installed by the seller, Contemporary Computer Systems, Inc. The sales contract had a clause that ...Evaluate the following statement: "Order paper and bearer paper must be delivered to be negotiated." In this bankruptcy case, the court had to determine whether an LLC should have been considered a purchaser of instruments or a holder in due course under the UCC. Yale, the company that purchased the instruments through ...
Post your question