Newmark v. Gimbel’s Inc.

Ruth Newmark (plaintiff) was a patron of a beauty parlor operated by Gimbel’s Incorporated (defendant). After patronizing one of the beauty parlors for over a year, Newmark sought the advice of her hairdresser, William Valante, regarding a permanent wave treatment. Valante advised Newmark on which permanent wave treatment was best suited for her hair, and Newmark took his advice, selecting the solution Valante recommended (Helene Curtis Candle Wave). After Valante applied the waving solution, Newmark experienced a burning sensation on her head. The burning sensation continued after her appointment was complete. Over the course of the night, Newmark’s entire forehead became red and blistered, and she experienced substantial hair loss. A dermatologist diagnosed Newmark with contact dermatitis of the scalp, which was caused by the wave solution. Newmark filed a lawsuit against Gimbel’s, claiming negligence and breach of express and implied warranty. The trial court dismissed Newmark’s warranty claims because the wave treatment was not a sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). The appellate court reversed the trial court, finding that an implied warranty of fitness existed in a hybrid transaction that combined the supplying of goods with the rendering of service and that the jury must decide whether such warranty was breached. Gimbel’s appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court.