Case Brief 1
Audio Visual Artistry v. Tanzer
403 S.W. 3d 789 (Tenn. App. 2012)
Audio Visual Artistry (AVA) is a firm that primarily focuses on custom design products. Civilian Stephen Tanzer and AVA entered into a contract where AVA would install a “smart-home” system (home theatre, controllable lighting, intercom, phones, music and television in multiple rooms) in the home Tanzer was having constructed. The contract detailed that, initially, the “smart-home” additions would include the ability to play music in seven different sections of the house, remote control panels would control the media systems and other “smart-home” functions, the house would be outfitted with an automated light system, and a house networking system would be integrated. The contract’s initial price detailed for this work totaled to 71,915 USD. The contract also detailed that Tanzer would likely want more as his home was built, and that AVA would build what he required and change the price accordingly. While AVA was installing these systems, they and Tanzer became involved in arguments regarding the price, quality of work, and what was being installed. Tanzer fired AVA and hired someone else to finish the work, at which point AVA sued him over a breach of contract and fought for the remainder of the contract price that Tanzer hadn’t paid. …show more content…
The relevant law, UCC Article 2, deals with the sale of goods, determining that goods are movable objects identified in the sale contract, with a sale being defined as the exchange of title from seller to buyer. The facts of the law conclude that the movable objects AVA was selling to Tanzer were, in fact, goods being sold, and not constructed due to the objects being previously manufactured and simply installed in the home. Thus, Article 2 of the UCC had jurisdiction in the
Audio Visual Artistry v. Tanzer
403 S.W. 3d 789 (Tenn. App. 2012)
Audio Visual Artistry (AVA) is a firm that primarily focuses on custom design products. Civilian Stephen Tanzer and AVA entered into a contract where AVA would install a “smart-home” system (home theatre, controllable lighting, intercom, phones, music and television in multiple rooms) in the home Tanzer was having constructed. The contract detailed that, initially, the “smart-home” additions would include the ability to play music in seven different sections of the house, remote control panels would control the media systems and other “smart-home” functions, the house would be outfitted with an automated light system, and a house networking system would be integrated. The contract’s initial price detailed for this work totaled to 71,915 USD. The contract also detailed that Tanzer would likely want more as his home was built, and that AVA would build what he required and change the price accordingly. While AVA was installing these systems, they and Tanzer became involved in arguments regarding the price, quality of work, and what was being installed. Tanzer fired AVA and hired someone else to finish the work, at which point AVA sued him over a breach of contract and fought for the remainder of the contract price that Tanzer hadn’t paid. …show more content…
The relevant law, UCC Article 2, deals with the sale of goods, determining that goods are movable objects identified in the sale contract, with a sale being defined as the exchange of title from seller to buyer. The facts of the law conclude that the movable objects AVA was selling to Tanzer were, in fact, goods being sold, and not constructed due to the objects being previously manufactured and simply installed in the home. Thus, Article 2 of the UCC had jurisdiction in the