1) Critique the essay and explain, point by point, what is wrong with the essay; and 2) Re-write (salvage) the essay in a style and format that is appropriate for a legal document. Note that this is NOT a research assignment. You need not look up the cases cited. You can assume that the cases cited are at least appropriate for the propositions that they purport to support. The only thing you need to do with regard to the cases is cite them correctly. This story is replete with fascinating facts and the intricacies that are inherent in the facts of the case make for a great story. The baseball bat was broken from the outset when it was bought by the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant should have to return the baseball bat and pay …show more content…

KLEIN’S ALL SPORTS, 600 N.Y.S.2d 1013 (N.Y.J. Ct. 1993), the Plaintiff purchased two defective bats. Plaintiff returned the first bat when it broke and was exchanged another bat in its place. The second bat also broke and when Plaintiff tried to return it, he was told that it could only be exchanged for store credit. The plaintiff then filed suit. The court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled relief to a full refund because there was a breach of warranty of merchantability. The court cited U.C.C. Code § 2-314 which applied due to the fact that the bat was intended for the purpose of hitting baseballs and was unable to serve that purpose.

ANALYSIS:

In the above case of DE CALCADOS MARTINI LTDA. v. MAXWELL SHOE CO, the court clearly stated that goods must be fit for the purpose in which they are used. In our case, the baseball bat was sold for the intentional purpose of hitting baseballs. The bat should have been able to withstand the impact of striking a baseball as this is the sole reason it was manufactured and sold in good faith for this purpose. The bat was unable to withstand the purpose for which it was intended which would be a violation of U.C.C. Code § 2-314.

The above case of DUDZIK v. KLEIN’S ALL SPORTS bears a very strong resemblance to our case. The Plaintiff is this case purchased a baseball bat, just as the plaintiff did in our case, and sought relief under the same breach of implied warranty of merchantability. The baseball