Court Opinion

ID: 9600007
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:23:02.386012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:48.467585
License: Public Domain

CARL B. JONES, Judge,
dissenting:
As is typical of small claims cases, there were no pleadings here to define the issues. *613At trial, however, issues were raised as to dental malpractice and breach of implied warranties under the UCC. Although the trial court based its decision on a finding of a breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, 12A O.S.1991 § 2-315, the trial court’s decision must be affirmed if sustainable on any ground. Benham v. Keller, 673 P.2d 152 (Okla.1983); Thompson v. Inman, 482 P.2d 927 (Okla.1971).
The decision cannot be affirmed on the basis of professional negligence as the necessary evidence of such negligence was lacking. But neither can the trial court’s decision’s be affirmed on the basis of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. There was no particular or special purpose involved as is required by § 2-315.1 The use Appellee was to make of the dentures was their ordinary use, and that they may not have been suitable for the ordinary purpose for which they were to be used is the concept of “merchantability”.
The implied warranty of merchantability is codified at 12A O.S.1991 § 2-314 and deserves a closer look.
“(1) ... a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. * * * *
(2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as ...
(c) are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; % * * * ”.
A “merchant” is defined as:
“... a person who deals in goods of the kind or otherwise by his occupation holds himself out as having knowledge or skill peculiar to the practices or goods involved in the transaction or to whom such knowledge or skill may be attributed by his employment of an agent or broker or other intermediary who by his occupation holds himself out as having such knowledge or skill.” 12A O.S.1991 § 2-104(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. ⅜ * * * ”. 12A O.S.1991 § 2-105(1).
“Dentists” and “dentures” appear to be included in the definitions of merchants and goods.
The transaction of a patient being fitted for and purchasing dentures from a dentist is actually a hybrid. It is not purely a sale of goods by a merchant, nor is it purely the providing of a service by a health care professional. Whether implied warranties under Article 2 of the U.C.C. apply to such a transaction should depend on whether the predominant element of the transaction is the sale of goods or the rendering of services. If the sale of goods predominates, it would be within the scope of Article 2 and the implied warranties contained therein. However, if the service aspect predominates, there would be no implied warranties. See 5 A.L.R.4th 501 (1981).
Although the record contains no specific findings of fact, the record does contain evidence from which it could be concluded that this transaction was principally a sale of goods and that the implied warranty of merchantability applies thereto. The evidence was also sufficient that the trier of fact could have concluded that the dentures were not fit for their ordinary purpose as required to establish a prima facie ease for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. We must affirm a law action tried to the court if there is any competent evidence to support the judgment. United Engines, Inc. v. *614McConnell Const. Inc., 641 P.2d 1101 (Okla.1980).
In contemporary society the old distinctions separating health care professionals from other businessmen are blurring in many respects. This Court’s holding that a dentist is not a merchant, and dentures, furnished by a dentist, are not goods ignores the fact that nothing excludes them from the statutory definitions of merchant and goods. It also ignores the fact that health care professionals in some instances are selling goods to their “patients”, with the providing of professional services being secondary to the sale. To such transactions there is no reason Article 2 of the UCC should not apply.
I respectfully dissent.

. "A 'particular purpose' differs from the ordinary purpose for which the goods are used in that it envisages a specific use by the buyer which is peculiar to the nature of his business whereas the ordinary purposes for which goods are used are those envisaged in the concept of merchantability and go to uses which are customarily made of the goods in question. For example, shoes are generally used for the purpose of walking upon ordinary ground, but a seller may know that a particular pair was selected to be used for climbing mountains.” 12A O.S. § 2-315 (Uniform Commercial Code Comment No. 2); Crysco Oilfield Services, Inc. v. Hutchison-Hayes International, Inc., 913 F.2d 850 (10th Cir.1990) (The use of a good in the ordinary manner for which it was manufactured does not satisfy the requirement of 12A O.S. § 2-315 that the good is to be used for a particular purpose.)