1. Goods versus Services. A. FACTS: Fred and Zuma Palermo contacted Colorado Carpet Installation, Inc., for a price quotation on providing and installing new carpeting and tiling in their home. In response, Colorado Carpet submitted a written proposal to provide and install the carpet at a certain price per square foot of material, including labor. The total was in excess of $500. The proposal was never accepted in writing by the Palermos, and the parties disagreed over how much of the proposal had been agreed to orally. After the installation of the carpet and tiling had begun, Mrs. Palermo became dissatisfied and sought the services of another contractor. Colorado Carpet then sued the Palermos for breach of the oral contract. The trial court held that the contract was one for services and was thus enforceable (that is, it did not fall under the Statute of Frauds (UCC 2-201], which requires contracts for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more to be in writing to be enforceable). B. ISSUE: Discuss fully whether the contract between the Palermos and Colorado Carpet was primarily for the sale of goods or the sale of services. C. RESOLUTION (Colorado Carpet Installation, Inc. v. Palermo, 668 P2d 1384 (Colo. 1983)] How did the court answer the questions? What did the court decide? D. EXPLANATION-Do you agree with the court? Why or why not? Can you change any facts to give a different result? 2. Risk of Loss A. Facts: Harold Shook agreed with Graybar Electric Co. to purchase three reels of burial cable for use in Shook's construction work. When the reels were delivered, each carton was marked "bunal cable," although two of the reels were in fact aerial cable Shook accepted the conforming reel of 1. Goods versus Services. A. FACTS: Fred and Zuma Palermo contacted Colorado Carpet Installation, Inc., for a price quotation on providing and installing new carpeting and tiling in their home. In response, Colorado Carpet submitted a written proposal to provide and install the carpet at a certain price per square foot of material, including labor. The total was in excess of $500. The proposal was never accepted in writing by the Palermos, and the parties disagreed over how much of the proposal had been agreed to orally. After the installation of the carpet and tiling had begun, Mrs. Palermo became dissatisfied and sought the services of another contractor. Colorado Carpet then sued the Palermos for breach of the oral contract. The trial court held that the contract was one for services and was thus enforceable (that is, it did not fall under the Statute of Frauds (UCC 2-201], which requires contracts for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more to be in writing to be enforceable). B. ISSUE: Discuss fully whether the contract between the Palermos and Colorado Carpet was primarily for the sale of goods or the sale of services. C. RESOLUTION (Colorado Carpet Installation, Inc. v. Palermo, 668 P2d 1384 (Colo. 1983)] How did the court answer the questions? What did the court decide? D. EXPLANATION-Do you agree with the court? Why or why not? Can you change any facts to give a different result? 2. Risk of Loss A. Facts: Harold Shook agreed with Graybar Electric Co. to purchase three reels of burial cable for use in Shook's construction work. When the reels were delivered, each carton was marked "bunal cable," although two of the reels were in fact aerial cable Shook accepted the conforming reel of
