UCC or Restatement for this scenario?

[jdphenom316]

Would you apply the UCC or the Restatement to the following scenario:

"Blaine, the owner of a tract of vacant land in a newly designated attraction site, contracted with Danaya, a reputable contractor, to design and build a triple-decker Mardi Gras float that would serve as a year-round tourist attraction...[cost to design and build $2 M ]....Because of the design of the float and the creative fixtures increasing its weight load, the plans called for the foundation's base to be about 20 feet deep. Halfway through the excavation, she realized that an underground water flow went through the soil at one corner....."

Would I apply the UCC or the Restatement to this and why?

Thanks in advance!!!

[cerealkiller]

This is a mixed contract, so you'll want to determine if it's predominantly for goods or services. Unless there are more facts that have been excluded, it's impossible to determine from the fact that the contract was for $2M. Therefore, you'll likely want to analyze the problem using both the UCC and CL.

[jdphenom316]

Because it is a non-movable good (i.e. it is fixed into the ground, a stationary structure) would it then not be part of the UCC?

[cerealkiller]

"Goods" means all things that are movable at the time of identification to a contract for sale. The raw materials required to build this thing are movable, right? This contract involves goods and services, which upon completion of the project will result in a non-movable structure. 

You'll get more points if you identify issues rather than just skipping pass them and concluding this is a service contract. In the end, it likely is a service contract. But, again, you don't want to be too conclusory in your response. Issue spotting is not just about spotting solvable issues, but also spotting those that aren't so easily answered.

With that said, I don't think you'd want to be belabor the UCC argument. This problem is best answered by applying common law principles.