OMAC, Inc. v. Southwestern Mach. & Tool Works, Inc.
| Decision Date | 26 October 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 77040,77040 |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 8 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 616 OMAC, INC. v. SOUTHWESTERN MACHINE & TOOL WORKS, INC. |
Donald D. Rentz, Albany, for appellant.
Jesse W. Walters, Albany, for appellee.
Appellant and appellee entered into an agreement whereby appellee manufactured and sold to OMAC certain specified parts made from materials supplied by OMAC. Appellee filed suit to recover monies owed it, and appellant counterclaimed. A jury returned a verdict in favor of appellee, and appellant appeals, contending the trial court erred in charging the jury on the principles espoused in OCGA §§ 11-2-601; 11-2-602; and 11-2-606.
The contested instructions are part of the Sales Article of the Uniform Commercial Code which appellant contends is inapplicable because there was no sale involved. "A 'sale' consists in the passing of title from the seller to the buyer for a price." OCGA § 11-2-106(1). W.B. Anderson Feed, etc., Co. v. Ga. Gas Distrib., 164 Ga.App. 96, 296 S.E.2d 395 (1982). The record does not contain a contract outlining the parties' duties and responsibilities, but appellee certified that the work performed by it was done on materials supplied by appellant and conformed to blueprints and revisions supplied by appellant. The prices quoted (and presumably charged) by appellee for its work were based upon appellant's supplying the materials. In essence, appellant agreed to perform a service, making appellant's material into the parts appellant needed. Because it used materials supplied by appellant, appellee's prices reflected only the labor cost of making the parts appellant ordered. Inasmuch as appellee sold a service and not goods to appellant, the UCC was inapplicable and the trial court erred in giving the charges excepted to.
JUDGMENT REVERSED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCombs v. Southern Regional Med. Center, A98A0211.
...209 Ga.App. 285, 288(1), 433 S.E.2d 687 (1993). As such, the Georgia UCC has no application. Id.; see OMAC, Inc. v. Southwestern Machine, etc., 189 Ga.App. 42, 374 S.E.2d 829 (1988). In these circumstances the trial court did not err in dismissing these counts as a matter of law. OCGA § 9-1......
-
Insul-Mark Midwest, Inc. v. Modern Materials, Inc.
...(6th Cir.1979), 609 F.2d 248 (shirtmaker made shirts, all materials except thread provided by buyer); OMAC, Inc. v. Southwestern Mach. and Tool (1988), 189 Ga.App. 42, 374 S.E.2d 829 (manufacturer manufactured and sold parts made from materials provided by OMAC). In each of these cases, the......
- Hayes v. State, 76986
-
Al and Zack Brown, Inc. v. Bullock, A99A0049.
...of steel, as evidenced by the fact that Brown purchased most of the steel directly from O'Neal. See OMAC, Inc. v. Southwestern Machine & Tool Works, 189 Ga.App. 42, 374 S.E.2d 829 (1988) (UCC did not apply where "[i]n essence, appellee agreed to perform a service, making appellant's materia......