Question

In the 2008 case Crown Castle Inc. et al. v. Fred Nudd Corporation et al., a case in which the telecommunications company Crown Castle sued a cell phone tower installation firm for the construction of faulty towers, the courts had to determine whether cell phone towers (monopoles) should be classified as movable (and hence goods) or non-movable (and therefore realty). Ultimately, it was determined that monopoles are goods. Items that are attached to realty (e.g. a counter or a bar) and that are used for business activities are described as trade fixtures and treated as goods. Software licenses are not tangible, but they are also not movable, and have been treated in different ways: as goods, a mixed sale (a tangible item tied to an intangible item), and pure services. Items such as soil and clay may be treated as goods even if they are part of immovable land because they can be extracted and moved. Crops that are sold while they are still growing on the land are also considered to be goods even though they are technically immovable while growing.

Can you think of any examples where you would question whether it is a good or not?

Answer 1

The classification of certain items as goods is complex, influenced by factors such as tangibility, movability, and usage. Real-world examples like solar panel systems illustrate the dilemma of whether to classify certain items as goods due to their potential movability and separability from real estate.

Step-by-step explanation:

The classification of certain items as goods can often be a complex legal question. Economists and legal systems may classify entities like homes, land, or software as goods depending on various factors like tangibility, movability, and usage. For example, crops growing on a farm may be classified as goods if they are sold while still in the ground, despite being physically immovable at that point. On the other hand, something like software licenses challenges these classifications because it lacks physical tangibility but can still be traded or exchanged much like traditional goods.

Considering a real-world example, take a solar panel system installed on a home. These panels are tangible and may be treated as goods due to their potential to be moved and sold separately from the house. However, they could also be seen as an integral part of the home's real estate, thus complicating their classification. This complexity is akin to how cell phone towers (monopoles) were determined to be goods in the Crown Castle Inc. v. Fred Nudd Corporation case.