Is a contract to buy blood from a hospital for medical purposes not a sale of blood?

305 Mass. 403 at p. 404-5, 26 N.E.2d 1 (1940)); a contract to buy eyeglasses from an optometrist is not a sale of the eyeglasses (see Babcock v. Nudelman, 367 III. 626, 12 N.E.2d 635 (1937)). He then continued at p. 795: The supplying of blood by the hospital was entirely subordinate to its paramount function of furnishing trained personnel and specialized facilities in an endeavor to restore plaintiffs health. It was not for blood—or iodine or bandages—for which plaintiff bargained, but the wherewithal of the hospital staff and the availability of hospital facilities to provide whatever medical treatment was considered advisable. The conclusion is evident that the furnishing of blood was only an incidental and very secondary adjunct to the services performed by the hospital and, therefore, was not within the provisions of the Sales Act. The fact that the treatment might have come from a physician, while the blood came from the hospital, is of no operative consequence; it is the transaction, regarded in its entirety, which must determine its nature and character.