Opinion ID: 1709421
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: whether the mississippi uniform commercial code is applicable.

Text: ¶ 22. Triconex argues that the control system had not been delivered at the time of the turbine damage because the system was still being tested; accordingly, the trial court's finding that the system was defective is clearly erroneous. Triconex further asserts that the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) provides that there can be no breach of contract where the goods in question have not been tendered, and Triconex argues that the system had not been tendered at the time of the testing. See Miss.Code Ann. § 75-2-503 (Rev.2002). ¶ 23. Triconex further argues that Greenwood has failed to prove that its damages, which are all consequential damages, were foreseeable and were proximately caused by Triconex, because it was not foreseeable that Greenwood would offer an employee who was incompetent to assist in the testing and who would make a mistake. ¶ 24. Greenwood argues that the UCC is not applicable since the trial court based its ruling on Mississippi general contract law. Greenwood further argues that the contract is not for the sale of goods; it is a competitively-bid construction contract for the specially-designed system. Greenwood also argues that this Court's mixed-transactions test in J.O. Hooker & Sons, Inc. v. Roberts Cabinet Co., Inc., 683 So.2d 396, 400 (Miss.1996) applies. In J.O. Hooker this Court stated: [W]hether or not the contract should be interpreted under the UCC or general contract law should depend upon the nature of the contract and also upon whether the dispute in question primarily concerns the goods furnished or the services rendered under the contract. Id. (emphasis in original); see also Anderson Const. Co., Inc. v. Lyon Metal Products, Inc., 370 So.2d 935, 938 (Miss. 1979). ¶ 25. Greenwood asserts that only forty percent of the contract deals with hardware, while sixty percent deals with services. [5] Greenwood further asserts that the dispute is over the design of the software and the testing that occurred. ¶ 26. In accordance with J.O. Hooker, we find that the UCC does not apply. Using this Court's mixed-transactions test, the dispute in the case sub judice clearly concerns testing of the system, which is a service. Additionally, this Court finds that the contract as a whole, as evidenced by Greenwood's demonstration that sixty percent of the contract related to services, was for the specialized design of the turbine by Triconex. Therefore, we find that this issue is without merit.