Ann wanted to purchase a gift for her boyfriend, Ben. Ann and Ben went to Ritz Jewelry to select the gift. Charles, the store manager, assisted them. Ann explained to Charles that she wanted to purchase a gift for Ben, and that Ben could select whatever he wanted. Ben chose a large gold chain costing $2,400. Ann and Ritz executed a written installment sales contract which identified the chain as "solid 18K gold," stated the purchase price of $2,400 which was to be paid by Ann in twenty-four equal monthly payments, and stated that the contract was not assignable. Ben wore the gold chain proudly, but the relationship with Ann ended a few months later. When the two parted, Ann made it clear that Ben could keep the gold chain. Ben subsequently took the chain to another jeweler for cleaning and then discovered that the chain was not solid gold after all, but rather was gold plated and the thin gold plating was wearing off the chain. Ben decided to make a claim directly against Ritz for misrepresenting the chain's quality, without involving Ann. When Ben made the claim against Ritz, Ritz informed Ben that Ritz had assigned the contract and its right to receive payments from Ann to CreditCo, a finance company. Ritz had previously notified Ann of the assignment. Ann had paid six of the twenty-four payments due under the installment sales contract. However, when Ann learned that the gold chain was not solid 18K gold as represented, she stopped making any more payments to CreditCo.

1. Can Ben prevail in a breach of contract action against Ritz? Discuss.

2. Can CreditCo prevail in a breach of contract action against Ann? Discuss.