Implied Warranties Under the U.C.C.

Question 1 

Darla cannot sue the local beauty salon for damages because they only provided services to her. The theory of breach of implied warranty under the U.C.C. only applies to goods. The only time that Darla could sue for damages was if the local salon had sold to her products with the awareness of particular use or buyer’s reliance on them to make the decision to buy. 

Question 2 

Darla may sue the manufacturer of the hair-coloring product for breach of implied warranty under the U.C.C. and claim for damages. Implied warranty of merchantability provides that the sale of a product by a merchant should be fit for general purpose, and this means that the goods must be reasonably fit to meet their intended purpose. The victim also suffered harm caused by the breach of the warranty, and this means she has all the reasons to sue for damage. However, the outcome would depend on whether the manufacturer of the hair color disclaims an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose in writing on the package. 

Question 3 

Article 2 of the U.C.C. does not apply to Tammy in case the beautician decides to sue because she is not a merchant. In this case, Tammy does not deal with the sale of cars and does not have special knowledge about it. The seller is a professional teacher who only seeks to sell their used car to a beautician but does not do it because she is on the business of car selling or leasing. The section would only be applicable if Tammy was a dealer in cars and she was in a position to provide advice about the use of the car. Also, at the time for sale, Tammy was not aware of the beautician’s purpose of the car.