n4 Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempts to distinguish Meyer v. ERJ, Inc., 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4011, No. 96 C 143, 1997 WL 158354 (N.D. Ill. March 31, 1997), wherein the court found that some transactions between the parties were service related. In Meyer, the first party supplied raw cloth material to the second party which the second party was to "process" and return as finished product (e.g., bedspreads, sheet sets, etc.). The Meyer court stated that "although [the second party] periodically produced materials in connection with these services, the predominant thrust of these transactions was to provide services, not to supply goods[.]" Id. at 4. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertions, this case directly supports Defendant's position here. Here, as in Meyer, NIM provided raw material to Mold-Tech for Mold-Tech to "process." As in Meyer, the essence of the contract was service, not the sale of a good. Indeed, this case is even more like a service contract than was Meyer because the end result of the contract in this case was immovable (the surface finish of the Roll), as opposed to the tangible products produced in Meyer (bedspreads).