Pittsley v. Houser - PDF

Preview

Summary

...

Description

Shaun Martin BLAW 321 Pittsley v. Houser Facts:  Jane Pittsley and Donald Houser (Hilton Contract Co.) entered into a contract to install carpet in Pittsley’s home;  Pittsley paid $4,402 to Hilton, and Hilton paid the installers $700 to install the carpet;  Pittsley stated that the installation was defective in many areas;  Hilton attempted to fix it but Pittsley was not satisfied;  Pittsley wanted a refund;  Hilton wanted the remaining amount of money left on the contract;  Pittsley was awarded $400 and Hilton was awarded $902;  Pittsley then appealed to the district court and it was reversed;  Hilton appealed and said that the UCC was not applicable because the defects were in the installation of the carpet and not the physical carpet.  Judgement was vacated. Issue:  Does the UCC govern this case due to the carpet installation being both a service and a good? Decision:  Hilton appealed and said the case applied to the service, not the good. Since the original contract was for the sale of a specific type of carpet, the UCC applies to this case. Reason:  Pittsley wanted to buy new carpet and wanted a specific brand and item number from Hilton. The installation fee was just an added cost with buying the carpet. The court later determined that the case dealt more with the purchase of the carpet, not the service of installing it. Article 2 of the Code applies to this case due to the carpet being a good that was sold....