Princess Cruises, Incorporated v. General Electric Company, & Third Party v. Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corporation, Third Party

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• observing that the documents repeatedly referred to services that would be provided in concluding that the transaction was principally for services
• holding a contract for repair of a cruise ship’s rotor was “principally” for services with “incidental—albeit expensive—parts” where the contract price blended the cost of specialized repair services with the materials used for the repairs
• providing “the language of the contract” is a pertinent factor in “determining the nature of the contract . . . .”
• determining the nature of the business points towards services because “although GE is known to manufacture goods, GE’s correspondence and Quotations came from GE’s Installation and Service Engineering Department”
• looking for guidance in contrasting two paradigmatic examples of a contract with an artist for painting, which is a contract for services, and a contract with the manufacturer of a water heater that includes installation, which is a contract for goods
• “standard commercial practice requires that a transaction be predominantly for the sale of goods before the U.C.C. applies.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).