Epstein v. Giannattasio
197 A.2d 342, 25 Conn. Supp. 109, 25 Conn. Super. Ct. 109 (1963)
Sections
Rule of Law:
A transaction in which the rendition of service is the predominant feature and the transfer of personal property is merely incidental does not constitute a sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code, and therefore does not carry implied warranties.
Facts:
- The plaintiff visited Giannattasio's beauty parlor for the specific purpose of receiving a beauty treatment.
- During the course of the treatment, the beauty parlor operator applied 'Zotos 30-day Color' (manufactured by Sales Affiliates, Inc.) and a pre-bleach (manufactured by Clairol, Inc.) to the plaintiff's hair.
- The plaintiff did not request to purchase the bottles of hair product directly but rather contracted for the treatment session.
- Following the application of these products, the plaintiff suffered acute dermatitis.
- The plaintiff also sustained disfigurement resulting from loss of hair and other associated physical injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Connecticut against the beauty parlor owner (Giannattasio) and the product manufacturers.
- The complaint alleged two causes of action against each defendant: negligence (Count 1) and breach of implied warranty (Count 2).
- Defendant Clairol, Inc. filed a demurrer arguing lack of privity, which the court overruled based on prior precedent.
- All three defendants (Giannattasio, Sales Affiliates, Inc., and Clairol, Inc.) filed demurrers to the breach of warranty counts, arguing that the transaction did not constitute a contract for the sale of goods.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is the application of hair products during a professional beauty treatment considered a 'sale of goods' under the Uniform Commercial Code such that implied warranties of merchantability and fitness apply?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Leipner
No, the transaction is legally defined as a provision of services rather than a contract for the sale of goods. The court reasoned that under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), implied warranties only attach to transactions involving 'goods.' To distinguish between a sale and a service, the court applied the predominant factor test, examining the intention of the parties. Citing precedents involving restaurant food service and hospital blood transfusions, the court determined that when a customer visits a beauty parlor, they are bargaining for the professional skill and service of the operator, not the purchase of the materials used. The transfer of the hair dye and bleach was 'patently incidental' to the main purpose of the contract: the beauty treatment. Consequently, because there was no sale of goods, the statutory implied warranties do not apply.
Analysis:
This case serves as a definitive illustration of the 'predominant factor test' used to distinguish hybrid transactions (those involving both goods and services) under the UCC. It establishes that in professional contexts—such as beauty salons, hospitals, or construction—the incidental use of consumable products does not transform a service contract into a sales contract. This limits the liability of service providers regarding breach of warranty claims, forcing plaintiffs to rely on negligence theories instead of the stricter liability associated with the sale of defective goods. The ruling aligns Connecticut law with the majority view that 'service' is the essence of such transactions.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Epstein v. Giannattasio (1963)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"