Douglas Singletary purchased a mobile home from P&A Investments, Inc. d/b/a Andy’s Mobile Home and Land Sales. On November 17, 2007, Singletary entered in a sales agreement with Andy’s to purchase a mobile home and paid the purchase price in full on November 19. Andy’s offered to deliver the mobile home to Singletary’s property, but Singletary refused, stating he would accept the mobile home “as is where is.” The mobile home was on a brick underpinned foundation.
Singletary hired movers to remove the underpinnings and transport the home to Singletary’s property. The movers began work around November 20.
On November 22, 2007, a fire destroyed the mobile home. Singletary demanded a return of his purchase price from Andy’s. Andy’s refused. Hence this action was commenced. The trial court found for Singletary in the amount of the purchase price of the mobile home. Andy’s Mobile Home and Land Sales filed this appeal.
The first issue presented is whether this sale is under the Uniform Commercial Code or the Motor Vehicles Act. The issue rests on whether a mobile home is a good, or if affixed to realty, it becomes realty. North Carolina law is well-settled that if the mobile home is affixed to land and that the intent of the owners was a permanent fixture to that land, then the mobile home becomes realty. The court found that while there were concrete or brick underpinnings to this mobile home, the parties had stipulated that the mobile home could be removed from the underpinnings and transported with very little harm to the mobile home. As such, the court held “…we conclude that it was not a part of the real estate but, rather, personal property and a “good” under the UCC.”
The second issue to determine is under the UCC, which party bore the risk of loss. The court noted that “North Carolina adaptation of the UCC ‘abolishes the traditional property passage’ or ‘title’ approach as regards the question of who bears the risk of loss … [if] the seller is a merchant, the risk of loss passes to the buyer on his receipt of goods … otherwise the risk passes to the buyer on tender of delivery.”
Even though title had transferred to Singletary, Singletary argues that risk of loss remained with the seller and thus Andy’s was responsible for the loss of the home by fire. The court of appeals disagreed. Since Singletary had refused delivery from Andy’s and accepted the goods “where and as it were” and since Andy’s had made the tender of delivery, in other words that Singletary was free to take possession at any time, risk of loss passed to Singletary when that mobile home was available. This was in advance of the fire date. The court did note that Singletary did possess an insurable interest in the mobile home but reversed the awarding of the purchase price from Andy’s to Singletary. The Court ruled “[Singletary] accepted the mobile home at its then-current location, and [Andy’s]
concurrently made tender of delivery. [Singletary] received delivery of the home ‘as is where is’ and obtained possession and control over it.” Thus the risk of loss fell squarely upon  Singletary. The court reversed the lower court.

CRITICAL THINKING:
It can be noted that Singletary’s hiring movers to move the mobile home, and that those movers had begun the project, shows that Singletary took possession and control of the mobile home. What if Singletary had done nothing to “take possession” yet? Would risk of loss have passed? Is “as is where is” the ultimate controlling language here?
ETHICAL DECISION MAKING:
The interesting point in this case is that the parties had stipulated that the mobile home could be moved without much damage despite there being a brick-andmortar foundation. Do you think that stipulation was determinative in the decision? What values are guiding the court’s decision in this case?