Reference no: EM131659332

Question: Case Problem with Sample Answer. Propulsion Technologies, Inc., a Louisiana firm doing business as PowerTech Marine Propellers, markets small steel boat propellers that are made by a unique tooling technique. Attwood Corp., a Michigan firm, operated a foundry (a place where metal is cast) in Mexico. In 1996, Attwood offered to produce castings of the propellers. Attwood promised to maintain quality, warrant the castings against defects, and obtain insurance to cover liability. In January 1997, the parties signed a letter that expressed these and other terms-Attwood was to be paid per casting and twelve months' notice was required to terminate the deal-but the letter did not state a quantity. PowerTech provided the tooling. Attwood produced rough castings, which PowerTech refined by checking each propeller's pitch, machining its interior, grinding, balancing, polishing, and adding serial numbers and a rubber clutch. In October, Attwood told PowerTech that the foundry was closing. PowerTech filed a suit in a federal district court against Attwood, alleging, in part, breach of contract. One of the issues was whether their deal was subject to Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code. What type of transactions does Article 2 cover? Does the arrangement between PowerTech and Attwood qualify? Explain. [Propulsion Technologies, Inc. v. Attwood Corp., 369 F.3d 896 (5th Cir. 2004)]