Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractstatutewillstatute of limitations

contractplaintiffmotionwillmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Coakley & Williams, Inc. v. Shatterproof Glass Corp., 706 F.2d 456, 36 UCC Rep.Serv. 87

Facts

Coakley & Williams, Inc. contracted with Washington Plate Glass Company to furnish and install glass for a building. Washington purchased the glass from Shatterproof Glass Corp. After issues with discoloration arose, Washington replaced the glass at no cost to Coakley. When discoloration occurred again, Coakley filed suit against Shatterproof alleging breach of implied warranties. Shatterproof moved to dismiss the case, claiming the U.C.C. was inapplicable and that the statute of limitations had expired.

Washington Plate Glass Company had a contract 'to furnish and install aluminum and glass curtain wall and store front work' on a building located in Lanham, Maryland being built by Coakley & Williams, Inc., the plaintiff.

Issue

Whether the U.C.C. applies to the contract between Washington and Coakley, and whether the statute of limitations had run on the claims regarding the replacement glass.

Whether the U.C.C. applies turns on a question as to whether the contract between Washington and Coakley involved principally a sale of goods, on the one hand, or a provision of services, on the other.

Rule

The U.C.C. applies to contracts predominantly concerning the sale of goods, and a cause of action for breach of warranty accrues when the breach occurs, which is upon tender of delivery.

U.C.C. § 2–314 creates an implied warranty 'that the goods shall be merchantable' to be 'implied in a contract for their sale.' Section 2–315 establishes an implied warranty 'that the goods shall be fit' for a particular purpose, '[w]here the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know [the] particular purpose.'

Analysis

The court determined that the contract between Washington and Coakley predominantly concerned a sale of goods rather than services, thus making the U.C.C. applicable. The court also found that the delivery of replacement glass constituted a separate transaction, allowing Coakley to file suit within the four-year statute of limitations from the time of delivery of the replacement glass.

A distillation of the cases outlined in the foregoing notes produces an inescapable conclusion that, on the facts in their present pro-plaintiff posture, a reasonable viewing of them would permit a factfinder to conclude that the contract between Washington and Coakley predominantly concerned a sale of goods, and consequently was governed by the U.C.C.

Conclusion

The court reversed the dismissal of the case and remanded it for further proceedings, allowing Coakley to pursue its claims under the U.C.C.

Accordingly, the judgment is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

Who won?

Coakley & Williams, Inc. prevailed because the court found that their complaint stated a valid cause of action under the U.C.C. and that the statute of limitations had not expired for the replacement glass.

Coakley has alleged enough to survive a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Levar v. Elkins, 604 P.2d 602

Denney v. Lovett, Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2006 WL 1915303

C.R. Anthony Co. v. Loretto Mall Partners, 112 N.M. 504, 817 P.2d 238, 1991-NMSC-070

Jackson v. Morse, 152 N.H. 48, 871 A.2d 47

J.F. v. D.B., 897 A.2d 1261, 2006 PA Super 90