Dr. Bryan Cook is a licensed dentist who fitted and made a set of dentures for Mrs. Iris Downing, a patient of Dr. Cook who was fitted for dentures. After Mrs. Downing received her dentures from Dr. Cook, she said they were ill-fitting and produced sore spots in her mouth. She filed suit against Dr. Cook on the basis of a breach of the UCC Article 2 implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. The trial court awarded damages to the Mrs. Downing on the basis of her remedies under the UCC Article 2. Dr. Cook appealed, maintaining that the dentures were not a sale of goods and on the basis that his expert witness testified that Mrs. Downing’s problems were probably due to candidas, an autoimmune reaction, or an allergy to the dental material but that her problems not due to ill-fitting dentures. Is Dr. Cook correct? Is this a common law services contract? {Cook v. Downing, 891 P.2d 611 (Ok. Ct. App. 1995).] Solution Dr Cook is correct as in this case though the sale element is involved as the dentures were sold to the patient but as the dentures were measured and installed into the patient it will be considered a service element. So the transaction between the doctor and patient was not a sale but service hence UCC law will not be applied for the same. Yes, this is a common law services contract. This is the law in which contractual transactions related to real estate, insurance, intangiable assests, employment and services are goverened. This case will come under the services contract..