Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Restatement was not error. Plaintiffs rely on Bell v. Poplar Bluff Physicians Group, Inc., for the contention that incidental transfer of a product does not relieve an entity from strict products liability. Bell v. Poplar Bluff Physicians Group, Inc., 879 S.W.2d 618, 619 (Mo.App.1994). This case is distinguishable however, because in Bell there was no question that the implant placed into petitioner’s body was done so in the course of the business of respondent. Id. The issue was whether respondent was a “seller” within the meaning of section 402A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Id. In this case, the issue is whether Corrigan sold the manlift in the course of its business. This is apparently a question of first impression in Missouri. Corrigan characterizes the issue 713 (1975) (<HOLDING>). The case of Abbott v. U.S.I. Clearing Corp., 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that for a transaction to constitute a sale and trigger a first right of refusal it must involve an armslength transaction resulting in an actual change in control of the burdened property rather than simply moving it from the individual owners to an entity controlled by them (B) holding that net lease provisions in agreement together with other factors establish that the transaction is a sale (C) holding that an auction sale by an unlicensed auctioneer did not invalidate the sale (D) holding that the onetime sale of an industrial saw by a sawmill was an isolated transaction that did not come within the provisions of section 402a (E) holding that an isolated derogatory remark did not create an inference of discrimination
Output (English): holding that for a transaction to constitute a sale and trigger a first right of refusal it must involve an armslength transaction resulting in an actual change in control of the burdened property rather than simply moving it from the individual owners to an entity controlled by them