This entry might seem very poorly timed with respect to yesterday's post given its fairly morbid overtones, but I think Beth would find it amusing in that it's both a silly story about fish, and also somewhat reminiscent of the Monty Python Dead Parrot Sketch.
As I mentioned in reference to the Gap, my contracts professor is very generous in helping us work through contractual analysis of all sorts of obscure real-life fact patterns. Last semester she helped me process what kinds of damages I could pursue if, after waiting for my friends after school in reliance of their promise to take the train line I preferred home with me, they did not do so. (Answer: apparently not much.) Similarly, my friend Megan recently recounted to our professor the following tale of her defective fish as well:
"... I had a long argument with the man at the fish store [at the mall] the other day. The sign says 'exchange within 14 days with the original content and packaging'. So I tried to exchange my fish. He insisted that it wasn't the original fish, because the original fish was alive when he sold it. He said I can change fish, if I don't like the color. I said I didn't like that it was dead. I finally paid the 2.50 as a policy matter, because he was making a scene and getting very upset, going on about how expensive it is to run a kiosk."
Our professor emailed her back and said that she'd once gotten a fish for free under similar circumstances. In her case it was easier to prove that the fish was defective because the shop had lost other fish due to illness around the same time. But normally it's very difficult to prove whether premature fish death would be because of poor health at time of purchase or some neglect on the part of the buyer. "Because of this uncertainty, I think the UCC rule makes sense. The risk of loss stays with the buyer after delivery. To shift it onto the seller, you would have to prove that the fish was defective to begin with. An autopsy, perhaps? :)"
She probably thinks she's joking...