Lexis Nexis - Case Brief

Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Law School Case Brief

Epstein v. Giannattasio - 25 Conn. Supp. 109

Rule:

When service is the predominant, and transfer of title to personal property the incidental, feature of a transaction, the transaction is not a sale of goods within the application of statutes relating to sales. 

Facts:

Plaintiff Betty Epstein visited a beauty parlor, conducted by the defendant Marie Giannattasio, for the purpose of receiving a beauty treatment. During the course of that treatment, Giannattasio used a product called "Zotos 30-day Color," manufactured by defendant Sales Affiliates, Inc., and a prebleach manufactured by defendant Clairol, Inc. Epstein filed an action for personal injuries, claiming that as a result of the treatment she suffered acute dermatitis, disfigurement resulting from loss of hair, and other injuries and damages. Defendants, Giannattasio the beautician and the manufacturers of the products used, Sales Affiliates and Clairol, demurred to the causes of action of the complaint against them for breach of warranty under the laws governing the sale of goods. 

Issue:

Did the transaction amount to a contract for the sale of goods?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

The applicable statutory law is the Uniform Commercial Code, adopted by the state pf Connecticut as title 42a of the General Statutes.  As the complaint alleges, the plaintiff asked Giannattasio for a beauty treatment, and not for the purchase of goods. From such language, it could not be inferred that it was the intention of either party that the transaction be a transaction in goods within the meaning of the code. The court sustained the demurrers as to the breach of warranty action, finding that service was the predominant feature of a beauty treatment and transfer of title to the products applied was incidental and therefore that the transaction was not a sale of goods within the application of statutes relating to sales. The trial court allowed the complaint sounding in negligence to go forward.

Access the full text case Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Be Sure You're Prepared for Class