You are here: / / THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT FOR THE “SALE OF GOODS” AND THEREFORE...
,

THE CONTRACT AT ISSUE WAS NOT FOR THE “SALE OF GOODS” AND THEREFORE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE (UCC) (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the contract at issue was not for the “sale of goods” and therefore was not subject to the requirements of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC):

Plaintiff and defendant signed a one-page “independent contractor and consultant” contract pursuant to which plaintiff agreed to sell certain minimum amounts of concrete on behalf of defendant (minimum) in return for monthly payments. During the term of the contract, defendant ceased making its monthly payments to plaintiff and terminated the contract, claiming that plaintiff had sold less than 10% of the minimum and failed to provide defendant with an adequate assurance that it could sell the remaining quantity by the end of the contract term. * * *

The dispositive issue before this Court is whether defendant was justified in demanding “adequate assurance of due performance” from plaintiff pursuant to UCC 2-609 (1). If article 2 of the UCC applies and if “adequate assurance is not forthcoming, repudiation is deemed confirmed, and the nonbreaching party is allowed to take reasonable actions as though a repudiation had occurred” … . Article 2 of the UCC applies only to agreements that are “predominantly . . . for the sale of goods, as opposed to the furnishing of services” … . “In determining whether a contract is for the sale of property or services the main objective sought to be accomplished by the contracting parties must be looked for” … .

Here, plaintiff met its initial burden on the motion of establishing that the contract was not predominately for the sale of goods. Pursuant to the contract, plaintiff agreed to provide services to defendant, i.e., to sell the concrete. The contract did not require plaintiff to purchase any products from defendant. Plaintiff therefore demonstrated that the UCC did not apply here, that defendant did not have the right to demand adequate assurance of performance … . Dreamco Dev. Corp. v Cranesville Block Co., Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 03937, Fourth Dept 7-26-24

Practice Point: The first question to ask in a breach of contract action is whether the contract is for the “sale of goods.” If not, the UCC does not apply.

 

You might also like
HEARING NECESSARY ON THAT ASPECT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION WHICH ALLEGED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL, DEFENDANT ALLEGED DEFENSE COUNSEL TOLD THE JURY DEFENDANT WOULD TESTIFY WITHOUT FIRST CONSULTING WITH DEFENDANT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE DISPUTE BETWEEN TWO RELIGIOUS ENTITIES COULD NOT BE RESOLVED ON THE BASIS OF NEUTRAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW; THEREFORE COURTS ARE PROHIBITED FROM ADJUDICATING THE MATTER BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT PHYSICIAN’S AFFIDAVIT DID NOT PROVE PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS INFORMED OF THE PRESENCE OF A FOREIGN BODY IN HIS PELVIS; THE AFFIDAVIT RELIED ON INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANT’S CUSTOM OR HABIT; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT). ​
THE 2022 CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING MAP FAVORED DEMOCRATS IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE III OF THE NYS CONSTITUTION (FOURTH DEPT). ​
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH EMPLOYMENT AND DEFAMATION CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED; ELEMENTS EXPLAINED (FOURTH DEPT).
In Proceedings Seeking the Reduction of Tax Assessments, Court Should Not Have Ordered the Inspection of the Interior of the Homes—The Assessor Did Not Demonstrate Interior Inspections Were Necessary for the Defense and Did Not Demonstrate the Need for the Inspections Outweighed the Homeowners’ Fourth Amendment Privacy Rights
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON AN UNAUTHORIZED FOREIGN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, THE COURT NEVER ACQUIRED JURISDICTION (FOURTH DEPT).
THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A DEFENDANT WHICH DID NOT OWN THE AREA WHERE PLANTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL COULD BE LIABLE UNDER THE SPECIAL USE DOCTRINE (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE STATUTE REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO REGISTER AS A SEXUALLY VIOLENT OFFENDER BASED... A COUNTY RECYCLING TRUCK IS NOT ENGAGED IN ROAD WORK AND THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT...