Court Opinion

ID: 9618275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 05:10:09.235164+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:04:27.430574
License: Public Domain

KAUGER, Justice,
dissenting to part II only.
I recognize that there are conflicting lines of authority concerning contracts of sale, contracts of labor and “contracts relating thereto.” However, the longstanding national jurisprudence holds that if the seller furnishes materials and fashions them according to specifications furnished by the purchaser or according to some model selected, and when without the contract the thing furnished would never have been built or it would never have been put in the particular shape or condition, the contract is one for labor and services.1 I would award attorneys fees pursuant to 12 O.S.1981 § 936(2), and I would overrule Burrows Const. Co. v. Independent Sch. *967Dist., 704 P.2d 1136 (Okla.1985) and Russell v. Flanagan, 544 P.2d 510 (Okla.1975).

. Eastlake Const. Co., Inc. v. Hess, 102 Wash.2d 30, 686 P.2d 465, 475 (1984); Hague v. Cleary, 48 P.2d 5, 9-10 (Cal.1935); Flynn v. Dougherty, 91 Cal. 669, 27 P. 1080-81 (1891). See also, Annot., "Construction and Effect of Exception Making the Statute of Frauds Provision Inapplicable Where Goods are Manufactured by Seller for Buyer,” 25 A.L.R.2d 672, 680 (1952).