Brenda Brandt was admitted to Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Center (Health Center) to receive treatment for urinary incontinence. During an operation, the doctor surgically implanted a ProteGen Sling (sling) in Brandt. Subsequently, the manufacturer of the sling, Boston Scientific Corporation, issued a recall of the sling because it was causing medical complications in some patients. Brandt suffered serious complications and had the sling surgically removed.

Brandt sued Boston Scientific Corporation and the Health Center for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability included in Article 2 (Sales) of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Health Center filed a motion with the court to have the case against it dismissed. Health Center argued that it was a provider of services and not a merchant that sold goods, and because the UCC (Sales) applies to the sale of goods, Health Center was not subject to the UCC. The trial court agreed with Health Center, found that the transaction was predominantly the provision of services and not the sale of goods, and dismissed Brandt's case against Health Center. The appellate court affirmed the decision. Brandt appealed.

Issue Is the transaction between Brandt and Health Center predominantly the provision of services or the sale of goods?

Do you agree with the Court's findings? Why or why not?

Give an example of a mixed contract for the sale of goods and services which is predominately the sale a good.

Who gains the advantage when a contract is for the sale of goods rather than a contract for a sale of services?

Do you agree with making a distinction between a contact for the sale of goods rather than the sale of services? Why or why not?