a) What was the basis for the Caterer's claim?
b) On what law was the Caterer's claim based?
c) Then why does this court's opinion discuss the UCC?
d) Why does he argue that?
e) When a contract involves both goods and services, how does a court typically determine whether the UCC applies?
f) On what basis does Rosenfeld claim that this contract is governed by the UCC?
g) What did the court decide here - was the predominant purpose of the contract for goods or services?
h) The court looks at the totality of what the contract would have provided Rosenfeld, pointing to a lengthy list of actives and entertainment available as part of the accommodations?
i) Why?
j) Does it rely on anything else?
k) What is the result of this decision?