As this section will discuss, "goods" are defined as any object that is movable at the time of the sale. The meaning of "goods" is sometimes an issue. You have already found Cryolife, Inc. v. The Superior Court (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 1145. Create a discussion board thread with a list of other things that would also likely NOT be classified as a "good" because of this ruling. In this thread, also discuss electricity as a good. I will give you a head start: look at this quote and case: Indiana has subjected public utility companies to liability for producing electricity by holding that the sale of electricity does involve the sale of a "good" under the Uniform Commercial Code. See Helvey v. Wabash County REMC, 151 Ind. App. 176, 278 N.E.2d 608 (1972). Indiana has limited this holding to cases where the electricity has passed the customer's electric meter. See Petroski v. Northern Indiana Pub. Serv. Co., 171 Ind. App. 14, 354 N.E.2d 736 (1976). Indiana supports this conclusion by finding that electricity is a thing existing and moveable. The court in Helvey, applying the definition of a "good" under the Uniform Commercial Code, said "logic would indicate that whatever can be measured in order to establish the price to be paid would be indicative of fulfilling both the existing and moveable requirements of goods." Helvey, 151 Ind. App. 176, 178, 278 N.E.2d 608, 610 (1972)." Do you agree with this case? How does this seem similar or dissimilar to the Cryolife case ruling? Write out your answers to these question after your list in your thread