Business law: Brandt v. Boston Scientific

BUSINESS LAW Name: Course: Instructor’s Name: Date: Brandt v. Boston Scientific Goods can be said to be tangible as well as moveable. The facts of this case were as follows: The plaintiff had gone to Sarah Bush Health care Centre after suffering from a urinary infection. Where upon an operation, a Protégé Sling was inserted in Brandt. This device was later recalled by the manufactures after they had caused complications that it caused to patients. Brandt unfortunately was amongst those who suffered complications and it was surgically removed. She sued the Boston Scientific Corporation and the Health care centre claiming a breach of merchantability under the Union of Commercial Code under Article 2. The health care centre argued that it was a service provider and not a merchant (Brandt v. Boston Scientific Corp). The issue at hand was whether the facility was a service or goods provider. The analysis provided by the defense showed that the Hospital was more of a service provider that a merchant basing it on the three elements of proving Sale of goods, the merchant of the goods and the quality of the goods. 51% catered for the services while the sling and surgical kit cost 14% and 48% respectively. It was held that in a mixed contract for goods and services, the sale of services was more predominant than that of goods. In my own view, the (UCC) had no connection whatsoever with the Health care facility if based on other grounds the case would have succeeded. Lindholm v. Brant. This was a case of an art collector who had entrusted his Red Elvis in the hand of Malmberg who ran an art exhibition. Lindholm had ...