brief the case 430 P.2d 392 following same format as the bottom case

Also provide source please.. Thank you

This is the case that I briefed before and the name was Pittsley v. Houser

Facts:

Pittsley complained to Hilton that some seams were visible, that gaps appeared, that the carpet did not lay flat in all areas, and that it failed to reach the wall in certain locations.

Hilton made various attempts to fix the installation, but Pittsley wasn't satisfied with the work.

Pittsley initially paid Hilton $3,500 on the contract, but refused to pay the remaining balance of $902.

Pittsley filed suit against Hilton seeking rescission of the contract, return of the $3,500 and incidental damages.

Hilton counterclaimed for the balance remaining on the contract

The judge awarded Pittsley $250 damages plus $150 she expended in moving furniture prior to Hilton's attempt to repair the carpet.

On the counterclaim, the magistrate awarded Hilton the $902 remaining on the contract

Pittsley appealed to the district court, claiming that the transaction involved was governed by the Idaho UCC

The district court agreed with Pittsley's argument, reversing and remanding the case to the magistrate to make additional findings of fact and to apply the UCC to the transaction.

Hilton appealed the decision of the district court.

Issue: Should have been transaction governed by the Idaho UCC?

Holding: Yes

Reason: If the transaction involves sale of goods, transaction should be governed by UCC. If the transaction doesn't involve sale of goods but rather providing a service, it shouldn't be governed by UCC. It appears that Pittsley entered into this contract for the purpose of obtaining carpet of a certain quality and color. It does not appear that the installation, either who would provide it or the nature of the work, was a factor in inducing Pittsley to choose Hilton as the carpet supplier. Therefore, the transaction should be governed by Idaho UCC.