1. In September of 1988, Jane Pittsley contracted with Hilton Contract Carpet Co. for the installation of carpet in her home. The total contract price was $4,402. Hilton paid the installers $700 to put the carpet in Ms. Pittsley's home. Following installation, Ms. Pittsley complained to Hilton that some seams were visible, that gaps appeared, that the carpet did not lie flat in all areas, and that it failed to reach the wall in certain locations. Although Hilton tried several times to fix the installation by stretching the carpet and other methods, Ms. Pittsley was not satisfied with the work. Eventually, Ms. Pittsley refused to allow Hilton to try to fix the carpet. Ms. Pittsley had paid Hilton $3,500, but she refused to pay the remaining balance of $902.Ms. Pittsley filed suit, seeking rescission of the con-tract, return of her $3,500, and incidental damages. Hilton answered and counterclaimed for the balance remaining on the contract. Hilton also defended on the grounds that the only issue was the installation and that the damages were minimal. Ms. Pittsley argued that the contract was under the UCC and that she was entitled to remedies because the carpet was defective. Hilton disagreed on the application of the UCC. Who is correct? Does the UCC apply to the contract for the carpet sale and installation? Is Ms. Pittsley entitled to the warranty protection of the UCC?

2. On August 6, 1998, Mr. Ruvolo purchased two chicken gordita sandwiches from Taco Bell. While eating the second sandwich, he felt a sharp pain in his throat and dislodged a chicken bone. The bone caused a scrape in his throat, and, as a result, he was treated at an emer-gency room. The following day, Mr. Ruvolo was diag-nosed with acute tonsillitis, pharyngitis, sinusitis, and gastritis.Mr. Ruvulo sued Taco Bell and its food distribu-tors, alleging that the infections were due to the chicken bone's scratching his throat and causing an opening where germs and bacteria could enter. He further alleged that Taco Bell and its food distributors were liable because of their failure to properly inspect the chicken. Discuss the theories Mr. Ruvulo might use for recovery and who the defendants might be.