Opinion ID: 877388
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Applicability of Uniform Commercial Code.

Text: The trial court, over appellants' objections, gave three jury instructions based on the general statutory warranties of sections 30-11-214, 30-11-215, and 30-11-216, MCA. Appellants argued that these instructions were inapplicable on the ground that the Uniform Commercial Code applied to the transaction and precluded the use of the general statutory warranties. Appellants contend the trial court erred in refusing their proposed instructions based on the U.C.C., sections 30-2-606, 30-2-607, 30-2-717, 30-2-714(2), 30-2-605 and 30-2-314, MCA. We agree. Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code applies to sales of goods. Goods is defined in section 30-2-105, MCA, as follows: (1) `Goods' means all things (including specially manufactured goods) which are movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale other than the money in which the price is to be paid, investment securities ... and things in action ... (2) Goods must be both existing and identified before any interest in them can pass. Goods which are not both existing and identified are `future' goods. A purported present sale of future goods or of any interest therein operates as a contract to sell. The question of whether a sale of a modular home is governed by the U.C.C. has been decided by only two courts. The Indiana Court of Appeals held that the sale of a modular home was a sale of goods and therefore governed by the U.C.C. Stephenson v. Frazier (Ind. App., 1980), 399 N.E.2d 794. In Cates v. Morgan Portable Building Corp., (7th Cir.1979), 591 F.2d 17, the court approved of the lower court's conclusion that two prefabricated modular hotel units were goods under U.C.C. § 2-105. The respondents have argued that Grizzly Manufacturing had charge of the home until after it was permanently affixed to the foundation, at which point it no longer had mobility. However, the time of identification to the contract is not dependent upon control of the goods by either party or upon delivery. According to Anderson, Uniform Commercial Code § 2-501:4: In the case of the manufacture of goods to the buyer's specifications, the fact that the goods are to the buyer's specifications is a sufficient identification of the goods to the contract. Consequently there is an identification of the goods from the moment when the first step of production is made with the raw materials which are intended to be finally worked into the goods required by the buyer's contract. The evidence shows that the modular home was manufactured to the Littles' specifications with regard to design and decoration. Thus the time of identification to the contract was the time of the first step in production. At that time the modular home was movable. The Uniform Commercial Code therefore governs this case and the general statutory warranties of sections 30-11-201 et seq., MCA are inapplicable by virtue of section 30-11-224, MCA.