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