Pittsley v. Houser
125 Idaho 820, 24 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 792, 875 P.2d 232 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For hybrid contracts involving both the sale of goods and the provision of services, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) applies to the entire contract if the transaction's predominant factor or purpose is the sale of goods, with services being merely incidental.
Facts:
- In September 1988, Jane Pittsley entered into a contract with Hilton Contract Carpet Co. (Hilton) for the purchase and installation of carpet in her home for a total price of $4,402.
- After the installation was complete, Pittsley complained to Hilton about visible seams, gaps, the carpet not lying flat, and it failing to reach the wall in some locations.
- Hilton made several attempts to fix the installation issues, including by stretching the carpet.
- Unsatisfied with the repair attempts, Pittsley refused any further efforts by Hilton to fix the carpet.
- Pittsley had paid Hilton $3,500 of the total contract price but refused to pay the remaining balance of $902.
Procedural Posture:
- Jane Pittsley sued Hilton Contract Carpet Co. in magistrate court (trial court), seeking rescission of the contract and damages.
- Hilton filed a counterclaim for the unpaid balance of the contract.
- The magistrate found the installation was unworkmanlike but ruled against rescission, awarding Pittsley $400 in damages and awarding Hilton the $902 contract balance.
- Pittsley (as appellant) appealed the magistrate's decision to the district court (intermediate appellate court).
- The district court reversed the magistrate, ruling that the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) should have been applied, and remanded the case back to the magistrate court for new findings under the UCC.
- Hilton (as appellant) now appeals the district court's decision to the Court of Appeals of Idaho.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) apply to a hybrid contract for both the sale of goods and the provision of services when the primary purpose of the contract is the sale of the goods?
Opinions:
Majority - Swanstrom, Judge, pro tem.
Yes, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) applies to a hybrid transaction if its predominant factor is the sale of goods. The court adopts the 'predominant factor' test to determine whether the UCC governs a mixed contract for goods and services. This test requires a court to determine whether the 'thrust' or 'purpose' of the contract is the rendition of a service with goods incidentally involved, or a transaction of sale with labor incidentally involved. The court rejects the minority approach of severing the contract into goods and services components, as that would contravene the UCC's purpose to simplify and clarify commercial law. Applying the test to this case, the court found that Pittsley entered into the contract to obtain carpet of a certain quality and color. The installation service was merely incidental to the primary purpose of purchasing the carpet. Therefore, the contract's predominant factor was the sale of goods, making the UCC applicable to the entire transaction.
Analysis:
This decision establishes Idaho's adoption of the majority 'predominant factor' test for applying the UCC to hybrid goods-services contracts. By rejecting the 'bifurcation' or 'severance' approach, the court promotes a more streamlined and uniform application of commercial law, avoiding complex proof problems. This precedent clarifies that in transactions where a service is necessary to make a good useful (like installation), the entire contract will be governed by the UCC if the good itself was the primary object of the contract. This impacts the available remedies for breach, shifting them from common law principles to those outlined in Article 2 of the UCC.
