Question

Gates entered into a contract with Mennonite Deaconess Home & Hospital for the installation of a new, "one-ply roofing system." The work was to be done by an installer chosen by Mennonite but approved by Gates. When the work was nearly complete, but before Gates had approved the work, the hospital paid the installer 90 percent of the balance due. After inspection, Gates did not approve, and in addition, the roof leaked and had to be replaced at the hospital’s expense. The hospital claimed that Gates was responsible for the quality of the work. Gates claimed that he could not be held accountable because service contracts are not covered by the Uniform Commercial Code. Did the contract involve goods or services, and will Gates be held responsible? [Mennonite Deaconess Home & Hospital Inc. v. Gates Engineering Co., 363 N.W.2d 155 (Nebraska)]

Answer 1

The Supreme Court of Nebraska ruled that the core of the contract involved the sale of goods, since the Hospital was purchasing the one-ply roofing system. Even though labor was included, the contract was predominantly about a good, not a service. E.g. when you purchase a car, someone sells it to you, but the core of the contract is the sale of the car.

In other words, Gates was responsible for selling a roofing system (good) and he is responsible for any defects.