Mr. Gulash lived in Shelton, Connecticut. He wanted an above- ground swimming pool installed in his backyard. Gulash contacted Stylarama, Inc. (Stylarama), a company specializing in the sale and construction of pools. The two parties entered into a contract that called for Stylarama to “ furnish all labor and materials to construct a Wavecrest brand pool, and furnish and install a pool with vinyl liners.” The total cost for materials and labor was $ 3,690. There was no breakdown in the contract of costs between labor and materials. After the pool was installed, its sides began bowing out, the 2” × 4” wooden supports for the pool rotted and misaligned, and the entire pool became tilted. Gulash brought suit, alleging that Stylarama had violated several provisions of Article 2 of the UCC.
Gulash v. Stylarama, 33 Conn. Supp. 108, 364 A. 2d 1221, Web 1975 Conn. Super. Lexis 209 ( Superior Court of Connecticut). End of Case:
Question:” Is this transaction one involving goods, making it subject to Article 2?”
The plaintiff, Mr Gulash, brought suit against Stylarama Inc(the defendant) for breach of an implied warranty of merchantability under the provision of Article 2 of UCC. The question is whether the contract between Mr Gulash and Stylarama Inc is subject to the rules articulated in Article 2 of UCC.
Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code applies to “transactions in goods”. The UCC defines “goods” as “all things, including specially manufactured goods, which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale ....” If a contract is for the purposes of providing services rather than goods, the court will apply common law rather than the UCC. In the event that a contract involves a mix of services and goods (mixed sale contracts), and the contract divides payment between the goods and services, article 2 of the UCC will be applied to the goods and common law would be applied to the...