This is the only information given

Please read the following care summary below. This is an sue of mixed goods within a sales contract. Is this contract for services? Or goods? Why does that determination matter? How do you know what facts in the case summary matter and help you make a determination? What TEST do we use to reach a decision? De what is the rule to apply for mixed goods? Please use the IRAC format to help structure your analysis and answer Princess Cruises, Inc. v. General Electric Co Citation. 22 1.143 F30 828 (4th Cir. 1998) Brict Fact Summary Plaintift, Princess Cruises, Inc, entered into a contract with the Defendant General Electric Co. for Defendant to perform inspection and repair services on one of Plaintiff's ships. Plaintiff's purchase order and Defendant's price quotations contain different terms and conditions. Delendant's terms and conditions limit Defendant's liability and the type of damages that can be recovered from Defendant Plaintiff requested that Defendant perform services and provide parts related to the turbines of one of its ships. Defendant manufactured the turbines. Plaintiff created a purchase order, which included a description of the services and a contract price of $260,000. The terms and conditions were on the reverse side of the purchase order and indicated that the purchase order was intended to be an offer. The terms and conditions also indicated that the offer could be accepted by acknowledgement or performance, the terms and conditions could not be unilaterally changed, and Defendant would warranty workmanlike quality and fitness for intended use. The same day the purchase order was received, Defendant faxed a fond price quotation containing a more detailed description of the work. The food price quotation also included a list of parts and materials, an offered price of $201.888, and Defendant's terms and conditions. Upon further review of the purchase order Defendant realized it included additional work not contemplated in the fored price quotation. Defendant notified Plaintiff of the error. Defendant later sent a firul price quotation including an offer to provide services, labor, and materials for $231,925 and Defendant's terms and conditions. Defendant's terms and conditions rejected those in Plaintiff's purchase order, rejected liquidated damages, limited Defendant's liability to repair or replacement, limited Defendant's liability for any claims to the greater of $5,000 or the contract price and also disclaiming liability for consequential damages, lost profits, or lost revenues Plaintiff gave Defendant permission to make the repairs based on the final price quotation during a telephone conversation between the parties. Defendant sent Plaintiff a confirmation acknowledging receipt of Plaintiff's purchase order restating the price from the final price quotation, and indicating Defendant's terms and conditions were to govern the contract. After Plaintiff's ship was inspected, Defendant recommended that the rotor needed cleaning and balancing. Plaintiff had to cancel a cruise due to the delays caused by the repair Plaintiff also alleges that continued problems caused further damage to the ship and resulted in the cancellation of another cruise