1.Pursuant to the UCC, a seller can disclaim all implied warranties by stating that goods are sold "as is" (or by using other, more specific language).Is this fair?The UCC's implied warranties seem reasonable - that goods be fit for their normal purposes, for example.Should it be so easy for sellers to escape their obligations?Would you ever buy an item "as is"?Would you be willing to pay more for goods to get the UCC implied warranties?

2.How would you decide if you were on the jury handling theStrumlauf v. Starbucks Corp.case or theGoodman v. Wenco Foods, Inc.case?Was there an express warranty in the Starbucks case?Why do you think so or think not?Did Starbucks breach the warranty?Was there a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability in the Wenco case?

3.Under the UCC's Statute of Frauds in Article 2, sale-of-goods contracts for $500 or more must be in writing to be valid.Because Article 2 only covers sale-of-goods contracts, agreements to sell services are not subject to the rule.Should the common law change so thatallcontracts valued at $500 or more have a writing requirement, or would that place an undue burden on businesses (and maybe even individuals)?How do you think that such a rule would impact your everyday course of life?