Epstein v. Giannattasio

197 A.2d 342

 

RULE:

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

FACTS:

The claimant received a beauty treatment and allegedly suffered personal injuries from the procedure. She brought an action against both the beautician and the manufacturers of the products used, which alleged negligence and breach of warranty under the laws governing the sale of goods. The beautician and the manufacturers demurred to the causes of action for breach of warranty. The court sustained the demurrers, finding that service was the predominant feature of a beauty treatment and transfer of title to the products applied was incidental and therefore, the transaction was not a sale of goods within the application of statutes relating to sales.

ISSUE:

Can an action be brought under the Uniform Commercial Code for a transaction that is predominantly service-based?

ANSWER:

No.

CONCLUSION:

The subject of the contract was not a sale of goods under the UCC, but rather, the rendition of services. The materials used in the performance of those services were patently incidental to that subject, which was a treatment and not the purchase of an article.

Click here to view the full text case and earn your Daily Research Points.