Also, the label specifically limits the representation to "normal scalp", which functions as a warning, and a "good warning" that the product may not be safe for atypical users, supporting why the manufacturer would not be liable here.

Thank You Professor!💗

@David Harutunyan I would add that there is a possible misunderstanding issue where Boss would argue that “all the eggs” includes any eggs later added to the pile, while Junior would argue it refers only to the specific pile identified when Boss pointed at it; I would also clarify that Boss’s later addition of eggs is best viewed as an "attempted" modification, which is not enforceable because there was no mutual assent anyways and specially (under common law), no new consideration. As a result, Junior fully (or at least substantially) performed the original agreement and is entitled to recover expectation damages. Expectation damages = loss in value + incidental/consequential damages − costs avoided. Here, Junior fully performed and Boss paid NADA so $100 (contract price owed) + $0 − $0 = $100. Since the goal is to put him in the position he would have been in had the contract been performed, Junior is most likely entitled of the $100 contract price :)