Critique This essay is poorly written in that it fails to use correct legal terminology. Instead, it uses casual slang that is unacceptable in todays court system. The citations are not formatted correctly nor are they used in an appropriate fashion. They were neither explained nor applied in depth to the case at hand. The citations were also not analyzed nor were the judgments discussed. Essay The plaintiff purchased a baseball bat from the defendant. A baseball bat is designed to hit baseballs at excessive speeds, so an implied warranty would be included in the purchase. However, the baseball bat itself was faulty in it's design and shattered as soon as the plaintiff attempted to use it. Its inherent defect violates the implied warranty of merchantability under the Universal Commercial Code (U.C.C.). We turn to Dudzik v. Klein's All Sports, 158 Misc. 2d 72 (1993) in this case for reference. In Dudzik, the plaintiffs purchased a bat manufactured with a specialized graphite carbon. This bat was being marketed as being an unbreakable bat that could hit the ball farther than a normal bat. The longer distance was not disputed in this case. The first bat bought from the defendant developed internal cracks due to a manufacturer defect. This bat was returned in exchange for another bat of the same make and model in accordance to the return policy posted at the store. The second bat also developed internal cracks and was rendered useless for its' intent and was again brought back to the store. This time, the plaintiff requested a refund for the total of $170.00 plus sales tax as both bats had been defective. The defendant, however, had a conspicuously posted refund policy which indicated that any exchanges after 30 days will be either on credit in the store or an exchange of the product. The notice went on to say that there are "no refunds for defective items". The