Fred and Zuma Palermo contacted Colorado Carpet Installation, Inc., for a price quotation on providing and installing new carpeting and tiling in their home. In response, Colorado Carpet submitted a written proposal to provide and install the carpet at a certain price per square foot of material, including labor. The total was in excess of $500. The proposal was never accepted in writing by the Palermos, and the parties disagreed over how much of the proposal had been agreed to orally. After the installation of the carpet and tiling had begun, Mrs. Palermo became dissatisfied and sought the services of another contractor. Colorado Carpet then sued the Palermos for breach of the oral contract. The trial court held that the contract was one for services and was thus enforceable (that is, it did not fall under the Statute of Frauds [UCC 2–201], which requires contracts for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more to be in writing to be enforceable). Discuss fully whether the contract between the Palermos and Colorado Carpet was primarily for the sale of goods or the sale of services.

Question

Fred and Zuma Palermo contacted Colorado Carpet Installation, Inc., for a price quotation on providing and installing new carpeting and til­ing in their home. In response, Colorado Carpet submitted a written proposal to pro­vide and install the carpet at a certain price per square foot of material, including labor. The total was in excess of $500. The proposal was never accepted in writing by the Palermos, and the parties disagreed over how much of the proposal had been agreed to orally. After the installation of the carpet and tiling had begun, Mrs. Palermo became dissatisfied and sought the services of another contractor. Colorado Carpet then sued the Palermos for breach of the oral contract. The trial court held that the contract was one for services and was thus enforceable (that is, it did not fall under the Statute of Frauds [UCC 2–201], which requires contracts for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more to be in writing to be enforceable). Discuss fully whether the contract between the Palermos and Colorado Carpet was primarily for the sale of goods or the sale of serv­ices.

Reed · Answer

Use your text materials to help you decide. It seems to me it was for both goods and services, since it included installation, which is a service. But you have to decide for yourself. That's your assignment.

Explain Bot · Answer

In order to determine whether the contract between the Palermos and Colorado Carpet was primarily for the sale of goods or the sale of services, we need to analyze the nature of the contract based on relevant legal principles. The Statute of Frauds, under UCC 2-201, requires certain contracts to be in writing in order to be enforceable. Specifically, contracts for the sale of goods priced at $500 or more fall under this statute. However, contracts for services are generally not subject to the Statute of Frauds. To determine whether a contract is primarily for the sale of goods or services, courts apply what is known as the "predominant purpose test." This test seeks to identify the main purpose of the contract by evaluating the relative importance of goods versus services. In this case, the contract involved Colorado Carpet providing and installing new carpeting and tiling in the Palermos' home. While the contract includes both the provision of materials (carpeting and tiling) and services (installation), it is important to assess the main purpose of the contract. Based on the facts provided, it appears that the primary purpose of the contract was the installation of the carpeting and tiling, which would fall under the category of services. The inclusion of the materials (goods) is secondary to the overall objective of providing a finished installation. Additionally, it should be noted that the contract was not accepted in writing by the Palermos, which may further support the argument that the contract was primarily for services. If the intention was primarily to sell goods, it would be more likely for the Palermos to require a written acceptance. Considering all these factors, it is reasonable to argue that the contract between the Palermos and Colorado Carpet was primarily for the sale of services and therefore not subject to the Statute of Frauds. It is important to note that laws and interpretations may vary by jurisdiction, so it would be advisable to consult with an attorney familiar with contract law in the relevant jurisdiction to get a precise legal opinion on this matter.