Reference no: EM132539682

Curtis Moeller is a crop and dairy farmer. Huntting Elevator Company sells and applies herbicides and fertilizers in addition to its other grain and crop-related businesses. In the spring of 1995, Moeller met with Huntting's manager, Paul Steier, who suggested fertilizers and herbicides that Moeller should use on his fields. Moeller agreed to notify the elevator when his fields were ready to be sprayed with herbicide. Between May 5 and May 18, 1995, Moeller planted corn. On May 20, 1995, he told the secretary at Huntting that he had finished planting and that his fields were ready for spraying. After waiting ten days for the sprayers, Moeller returned to Huntting and again notified the company that these fields were ready for spraying.

On June 13, 1995, after considerable complaining from Moeller about the height of the foxtail and other weeds in his field, Huntting's staff sprayed 119 acres of Moeller's fields and, three days later, sprayed the remaining 34 acres. Of these total acres, 119 acres were sprayed with a mixture of Accent, another herbicide, and a nonionic surfactant. Twenty-five acres were sprayed with a mixture of Accent and another herbicide. Nine acres were sprayed with herbicides other than Accent. Moeller paid $5,194.20 for the herbicides and separately paid $638 for the spraying services.

The spray was not as effective as promised, and Moeller, who lost substantial portions of his crops, filed suit under UCC Article 2 for breach of express warranty, warranty for a particular purpose, and the warranty of merchantability. Huntting maintains the contract is not covered under the UCC and that Moeller's only remedy must be to show that Huntting was somehow negligent in its work. Who is correct? Is the contract governed by UCC or common law?