Legal Opinion
Tacoma Athletic Club, Inc. v. Indoor Comfort Systems, Inc.
Court of Appeals of Washington
Decided September 14, 1995No. 16757-3-IIPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtWiggins, J.
Appellant Indoor Comfort Systems (Comfort Systems) sold and installed a dehumidification system for Tacoma Athletic Club (the Club). The trial court found that Comfort Systems breached the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose and awarded damages to the Club under Washington’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Comfort Systems argues that the UCC does not apply because this was a construction contract instead of a sale of goods. We adopt the "predominant factor” test used in most jurisdictions and hold that this was a sale of goods because the…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Frances M. Bonebrake, Administratrix De Bonis Non of the Estate of Woodrow B. Simek, Deceased v. Donald Cox and Claude Cox, D/B/A Tamarack BowlCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1974
- Willener v. SweetingWashington Supreme Court · 1986
- United States v. City of Twin FallsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Federal Signal Corp. v. Safety Factors, Inc.Washington Supreme Court · 1994
- Lidstrand v. Silvercrest IndustriesCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1981
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Condon Bros. v. Simpson Timber Co.Court of Appeals of Washington · 1998
- Williams v. Planet Motor Car, Inc.Civil Court of the City of New York · 2001
- Smith v. Skone & Connors Produce, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2001
- Smith v. Skone & Connors Produce, Inc.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2001
- Prime Start Ltd. v. MAHER FOREST PRODUCTS LTD.District Court, W.D. Washington · 2006
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.