Sales and Leases | 42
(2) A dentist and retailer contracted for the retailer to install a computer system in the dentist’s office, to handle the dentist’s bookkeeping and patient records. The contract also contemplated that the retailer would provide installation and maintenance services. The contractual charge for the computer system and software was $19,000, and the charge for installation and maintenance was $2,500. The retailer’s business was primarily to install such systems. Here, a court could easily find that the contract was one for the sale of goods, though services were also involved. The final product that the dentist wanted was the computer system, a good, and the retailer’s primary business was to provide similar goods. Any installation, maintenance, or consulting was incidental to this purpose. Finally, the charge for services ($2,500) was small relative to the charge for goods ($19,000). [ See Neilson Bus. Equip. Ctr., Inc. v. Italo V. Monteleone, M.D., P.A. , 524 A.2d 1172 (Del. 1987).] Compare : Two spouses owned a private plane. Preparing for an upcoming flight, the couple took the plane to a mechanic for inspection and repairs. The mechanic’s primary business was providing repair, inspection, and maintenance services for planes. The contract referred repeatedly to “repairs” and “inspection.” The mechanic wound up replacing the attachment brackets for both rear wings. The invoice showed that charges for repair work were far larger than those for the parts. Here, the common law, not UCC Article 2, governs the contract. The contract language emphasized repair and inspection services, the mechanic’s main business. The couple’s main concern was making sure the plane was in good repair for the flight; any parts provided were a means to that end. Finally, the charges for services were notably larger than those for the parts. [ See Pass v. Shelby Aviation, Inc. , No. W1999-00018-COA-R9-CV, 2000 WL 388775 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 13, 2000).] c. Gravamen Test The gravamen test oftentimes produces quite different results from those that would obtain under the predominant-purpose test. The gravamen test, true to its name, looks to the gravamen or primary focus of the plaintiff’s complaint. If the plaintiff’s allegations emphasize defective goods, then UCC Article 2 governs—even if the contract is primarily one for services. Conversely, if the plaintiff’s allegations emphasize the quality of any services or labor, the common law applies—even if the contract is mainly one for goods. [ See In re Trailer and Plumbing Supplies , 578 A.2d 343 (N.H. 1990).] Examples : (1) A man underwent surgery at a hospital to repair a hernia. As the surgeon was stitching the man up, a piece of the needle broke off and entered his body, injuring him. The man
Made with FlippingBook - Online Brochure Maker