Mennonite Hospital v. Gates Engineering

1. Who were the parties involved in the case? (plaintiff/defendant/respondent/petitioner)

Mennonite Deaconess Home & Hospital the plaintiff and Gates Engineering the defendant

2. What were the facts in the case?

Gates entered into a contract with Mennonite Deaconess Home & Hospital for the installation of a new “one-ply roofing system”. The work was to be done by an installer chosen by Mennonite but approved by Gates. When the work was nearly complete, but before Gates had approved the work, the hospital paid the installer 90% of the balance due.

After inspection, Gates did not approve and in addition the roof leaked and had to be replaced at the hospital’s expense. The hospital claimed that Gates was responsible for the quality of the work. Gates claimed that he could not be held accountable because services contracts are not covered by the Uniform Commercial Code.

Did the contract involve goods or services, and will Gates be held responsible?

3. What was the “Rule of Law” in the case? (Rule of law the court applies to determine the rights of the parties)

Fill in the blank

4.Who won the case? Why?