Question

Faylene underwent heart surgery that included, among other measures, the implantation of a pacemaker in her chest. Faylene later alleged that the surgeon's negligence resulted in a serious infection. Faylene's insurance company stated that the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) governed the dispute because at issue was a contract for a pacemaker, which is a good. The hospital responded that the claim was based on a contract for a surgery, which is a service, and was therefore covered by the common law. What result is most likely?

Answer 1

Answer: The court will apply the predominant purpose test and will probably hold that this was a contract for a service.

Step-by-step explanation:

Any agreement written in a contract which binds two parties are usually followed strictly. Whatever is written in the contract cannot be changed or influenced in the court room because it would have been believed that both parties went through the contract terms before signing it. Even though one party wants to challenge it in court it would hold no water for a challenge.

The case between Faylene and the hospital was signed in a contract for a peacemaker surgery, the effects of it and being taken to court would yield no effect since it's what Faylene wanted and entered agreement into.