1. Marilyn Thomas purchased a pool heater from Sunkissed. The contract read that the pool was to delivered and installed for a price of $1000.00. The pool heater was delivered to Marilyn’s residence, but the delivery slip was signed by Nancy Thompson. Marilyn did not know of anyone by that name. She called Sunkissed to advise the company to move the heater indoors. She was afraid the heater might be damaged or stolen. The heater remained in her driveway for four days. When Marilyn noticed that the heater had been removed she again called Sunkissed, but she was told “not to worry.” When Sunkissed showed up to install the heater, they realized that the heater had been stolen. Who was responsible for the loss of the heater? Fully explain your answer. I believe that the Company Sunkissed should be completely held accountable for the stolen pool heater. First off, a common law rule called the perfect tender rule was not taken as seriously …show more content…
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. The treatment was for services and not for goods. Ms. Epstein suffered this severe hair loss not because of the product itself, but because the hair stylist chose to “use this product on the client” without consulting with her first. Therefore, Clairol and Sale Affiliate shouldn’t have anything to do with the