The world’s Largest Sharp Brain Virtual Experts Marketplace Just a click Away
Levels Tought:
Elementary,High School,College,University,PHD
| Teaching Since: | May 2017 |
| Last Sign in: | 356 Weeks Ago, 5 Days Ago |
| Questions Answered: | 20103 |
| Tutorials Posted: | 20155 |
MBA, PHD
Phoniex
Jul-2007 - Jun-2012
Corportae Manager
ChevronTexaco Corporation
Feb-2009 - Nov-2016
Question description
Â
 Betty Epstein visited a beauty parlor to get her hair dyed. In the dying process, the beautician used a pre-bleach solution manufactured by Clairol, and then a commercial dye manufactured by Sales Affiliate, Inc. The treatment went awry, and the plaintiff suffered severe hair loss, injuries to both her 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. Do you think the treatment was for services or goods? What difference does it make whether the beauty treatment was a good or a service under UCC rules? Fully explain your answer
Hel-----------lo -----------Sir-----------/Ma-----------dam----------- T-----------han-----------k Y-----------ou -----------for----------- us-----------ing----------- ou-----------r w-----------ebs-----------ite----------- an-----------d a-----------cqu-----------isi-----------tio-----------n o-----------f m-----------y p-----------ost-----------ed -----------sol-----------uti-----------on.----------- Pl-----------eas-----------e p-----------ing----------- me----------- on----------- ch-----------at -----------I a-----------m o-----------nli-----------ne -----------or -----------inb-----------ox -----------me -----------a m-----------ess-----------age----------- I -----------wil-----------l