Question: THE PLANTATION SHUTTER CO. v. EZELL, 492 S.E. 2D 404 (S.C. CT. APP. 1997)
FACTS Ricky Ezell contracted to purchase speciallymanufactured interior shutters for his home from The Plantation Shutter Company ("Plantation") for $5,985.75. Plantation was to manufacture and install the shutters. Ezell was not satisfied with 12 of the 37 panels after installation. Plantation agreed to remake the shutters. Ezell continued to complain about several aspects of the shutters, including their exposed hinges. Plantation agreed to specially-manufacture side strips to hide the hinges. Plantation made several attempts to schedule an appointment to install the hinges, but Ezell did not respond to its efforts. Finally, Plantation sent workers to the home to install the hinges, but Ezell refused them access. Plantation sued Ezell for breach of contract to collect the balance owing on the shutters. Ezell argued that the UCC did not apply to this contract because it was a contract for services. DECISION The court disagreed, stating: In considering whether a transaction that provides for both goods and services is a contract for the sale of goods governed by the UCC courts generally employ the predominant factor test. Under this test, if the predominant factor of the transaction is the rendition of a service with goods incidentally involved, the UCC is not applicable.
If, however, the contract's predominant factor is the sale of goods with labor incidentally involved, the UCC applies. In most cases in which the contract calls for a combination of services with the sale of goods, courts have applied the UCC. *** Here, the contract does not provide for installation charges. The document is entitled "Terms of Sale." By signing the contract, however, the "customer" authorized the "sales representative" to do the "work" as specified. Although the term "work" sounds more like a service contract term, looking at the contract as a whole, it is predominantly a contract for the sale of goods; therefore, we must apply the UCC. The court determined that Ezell was liable for breach of contract because he had accepted the shutters by failing to effectively reject them in accordance with UCC requirements.