Goods versus Services. Fred and Zuma Palermo contacted Colorado ...

[BrownTown3]

Goods versus Services. Fred and Zuma Palermo contacted Colorado Carpet Installation, Inc, for a price quotation on providing and installing new carpeting and tiling in their home. In response, Colorado Carpet submitted a written proposal to provide and install the carpet at a certain price per square foot of material, including labor. The total was in excess of 500. The proposal was never accepted in writing by the Palermos, and the parties disagreed over how much of the proposal had been agreed to orally. After the installation of the carpet and tiling had begun, Mrs. Palermo became dissatisfied and sought the services of another contractor. Colorado Carpet then sued the Palermos for breach of the oral contract. The trial court held that the contract was one for services and was thus enforceable (that is, it did not fall under the Statute of Frauds

Question 2

A(n) ______ is one whose identity is known by the third party at the time a contract is entered into with an agent.
 a. undisclosed principal
  b. disclosed principal c. specific principal
  d. legitimate principal e. clear principal

[jessofishing]

Answer to Question 1

Goods versus services
The Supreme Court of Colorado ruled that the contract was for the sale of goods and hence fell under the Statute of Frauds and was unenforceable. In determining that the contract was primarily for the sale of goods, the court considered several useful factors. These factors included the contractual language used by the parties; whether the agreement involved one overall price that included both goods and labor or, instead, called for separate and discrete billings for goods on the one hand and labor on the other; the ratio that the cost of goods bore to the overall contract price; and the nature and reasonableness of the purchaser's contractual expectations of acquiring a property interest in goods (goods being defined as things that are movable at the time of identification in the contract). The court concluded that the contract, in respect to all these factors, appeared to be predominantly for a sale of goods with labor or service only incidentally involved.

Answer to Question 2

b

[BrownTown3]

Excellent

[peter]

Gracias!