Audio Visual Artistry v. Tanzer
Court of Appeals of Tennessee
403 S.W.3d 789 (2012)
Stephen Tanzer (defendant) hired Audio Visual Artistry (AVA) (plaintiff) to install a custom "smart home" audio-visual system, a contract that grew from about $70,000 to roughly $120,000 in equipment and labor. After lightning twice damaged the still-unfinished system, Tanzer fired AVA, hired a replacement contractor for about $70,000, and counterclaimed against AVA under the UCC and Tennessee's Consumer Protection Act. The trial court applied the UCC, found Tanzer properly rejected the main components and was entitled to an offset, but rejected his consumer-protection claims and reduced his repair damages for unrelated upgrades; Tanzer appealed the UCC ruling.
Whether, under the predominant-purpose test, the Uniform Commercial Code governs a contract to install electronic components as primarily involving the sale of goods.