Audio Visual Artistry v. Tanzer Brief PDF

Preview

Summary

Assignment of case brief with facts, application, etc. between Audio Visual Artistry & Tanzer...

Description

Naman Jassi BLAW 280 Prof. Samuels March 30, 2021 Brief of Audio Visual Artistry v. Tanzer case

Facts Audio Video Artistry (AVA) is firm specializing in communications and entertainment systems for homes. Stephen Tanzer contacted with AVA for the installation of smart home system. AVA gave a proposal for parts, components and installation or a quotation for work. The contract price of $71,915 included a breakdown of categories: Equipment: $55,375; Labor: $9,880; and Cable/Misc. Parts: $5,660. In matter of that a Disputed has took place between both parties over some amounts and adjustments, the work that has been done was not according to Contract, there was quality issue in AVA’s work. AVA sued Tanzer for contract breach is seeking payment of portions of the contract price that Tanzer had not paid. Tanzer Counter that AVA’s claim with theory that AVA had breached its obligations under the contract. The Court gave judgment in favor of AVA with amount of $36,580. Tanzer appealed to the Tennessee Court of Appeals and argued that the trial court erred in applying the UCC, and in its calculation of damages. Tanzer also appealed the trial court's determination that the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act did not apply

Issue Did trail court err in applying UCC? Does there were sufficient evidence against Tenzer for Breaching contract? Does Contract Between AVA and Tenzer apply to the Principles of Common Law?

Rule Tanzer must prove that his contract with AVA is for services and not for the sale of good so that Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code is applicable, the court find these factors in case : 1) the language of the contract 2) the nature of the business of the supplier of goods and services. 3) the reason the parties entered the contract 4) the amounts paid for the rendition of the services and goods.

Application

Tanzer appealed that the trial court erred in applying UCC Article 2 to his contract with AVA. Tanzer argues that the contract is for services and not for the sale of goods. Therefore, according to Tanzer, common law breach of contract’s principles applies. The question of whether UCC or common law contract principles apply is important in terms of ongoing dispute and the measure of damages between both parties. 1) The court held that the trial court found that a contract between a Tanzer and AVA was for a "smart home" was predominantly for the sale of goods under. 2) the contract contemplated the sale of various, movable parts, which were to be integrated through a control system. 3) The reason AVA and Tanzer went into a contract was because Tanzer wanted a home sound system. 4) The costs of labor and services were insignificant compared to the cost of the equipment.

Conclusion All the factors reflect that the contract was predominant for sale of goods. Therefore, we can conclude that the trail court did not err in applying UCC Article and court decision in Ava is affirmed....