I. Issue- Do mobile homes fall under UCC as good not real estate?
II. Rule: N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-102 (2009), the law traditionally treats a mobile home not as an improvement to real property but as a good, defined and controlled by the UCC as something movable at the time of identification to the contract for sale.
III. Application of facts-. The defendant sold the plaintiff a mobile home. Since the mobile home was on a brick foundation the plaintiff contends that it was real estate and not a good under UCC.
IV. Conclusion: Because the plaintiff had crew break down the home from the brick foundation and remove it’s under pins, the home therefor is considered moveable, and falls under the UCC as good.
...view middle of the document...
Instead, Plaintiff elected to purchase and accept the mobile home “As is where is”, as reflected in the sales contract.
VIII. Conclusion: Because the plaintiff did not want the mobile home delivered to a destination and because the time elapsed from when he could have gave a notice for cancelation the sale was complete and risk and loss passed to the defendant.
IX. Issue- Did the plaintiff have the right to resell the mobile home?
X. Rule § 25-2-401, occurs at the time and place at which the seller completes his performance with reference to the physical delivery of the goods. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 20-75 When the transferee of a vehicle registered under [the MVA] is . . . [a] dealer who is licensed under Article 12 of this Chapter and who holds the vehicle for resale
XI. Application of facts- Defendant and Vanderbilt Mortgage and Finance, Inc. (Vanderbilt), acting on behalf of Oakwood Acceptance Corp. (Oakwood), contracted to purchase a 1996 Oakwood mobile home for resale. Oakwood had repossessed the manufactured home under a chattel mortgage or conditional sales contract from the persons who held title. Defendant, Vanderbilt, and Oakwood were all merchants with respect to the sales of manufactured homes under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 25-2-104.
XII. Conclusion: Because the defendant had the right to sell the mobile home, the risk and loss transferred to the plaintiff therefore the court reversed the decision made by the other court and didn’t make the defendant pay the money for the fire to the mobile home.