Legal Brief - Week 06 - Pittsley vs Hilton
Pittsley v. Hilton
Case Facts
Jane Pittsley
(Pittsley) contracted with Hilton Contract Carpet Co. (Hilton), to install
carpet in her house for a total price of $ 4,402 in September 1998. Although Pittsley
paid Hilton the initial fee of $700, she was not satisfied by finding defective
in many areas of the installation. Hilton attempted several times to fix the faulty
areas but Pittsley was still not satisfied and instead requested that:
·
the contract be rescinded,
·
the amount of $3,500 paid so far be returned,
·
And the incidental damages to be paid.
The magistrate determined that the contract
could not be rescinded because
none of the parties committed a breach and awarded Pittsley $400 ($250 damages plus $150). Hilton counterclaimed for the balance due on the contract was awarded
the remaining balance of $902.
Pittsley decided to appeal to the district
court, evoking that the contract is considered under the Idaho Uniform
Commercial Code (UCC) because the carpets ordered were parts of “goods”. Hilton
disagreed with Pittsley and mentioned that the issue was in the installation,
not the materials. The district court returned the case to the magistrate for
reconsideration and to apply the UCC to the transaction.
The Issue
The main issue is to conclude
whether or not this transaction can be governed by the Idaho UCC?
Rule
In General, the UCC applies only to the sale
of “goods”. Therefore, it is erroneous to apply the UCC rule for the
transaction that involves real estate, services, and stock.
The Idaho UCC – Sales defines “goods” as “all things (including
specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification
to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid,
investment securities (chapter 8) and things in action. "Goods" also
includes the unborn young of animals and growing crops and other identified
things attached to realty as described in the section on goods to be severed
from reality.”
Nevertheless, a hybrid
transaction can involve both goods and services, which led to conflicts with
the purpose of the UCC. Under such transactions, courts established conflicting
tests and precedents.
Application
Pittsley versus
Hilton is an example of a hybrid transaction. She was in quest of obtaining a carpet of a certain quality and color. The contract indicates the supplying of
“175 yards Masterpiece #2122-Installed” for $4,319.50 and an additional charge
of $82.50 for removing the existing carpet.
Although Pittsley
paid Hilton the amount of $3,500, she was not satisfied with the service
received as per the agreement entered in September of 1998. Her request of
fixing the installation was legitimate and Hilton make some efforts to repair
the defective areas.
Based
on the contractor’s willingness to satisfy the client’s needs, the magistrate
found that rescission, as an
equitable remedy to cancel the contract, was only available when one party committed
a breach. Furthermore, the court found that the primary purpose of the contract
was the sale of carpet and that the installation service was secondary.
Ruling
The contract was more about buying a specific
brand of carpets and the installation was included in the purchase fee. Therefore, Article 2 of the UCC applies to this case.
Reference
Michael H (2021). “Business Law.”
Brigham Young University - Idaho, Chapter 11
Idaho Legislature. “Idaho Statute”. 2021
https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/title28/t28ch2/sect28-2-105/. (Accessed 23 October 2021)
50/50
ReplyDelete