This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P, an expert in interior and exterior design, alleges that she and D entered into a contract in June 2007 for interior design services. D would be liable for payment of P's creative design services as well as the cost of furniture and other tangible items needed to achieve P's vision. From December 2007 through July 2010, P renovated and decorated numerous rooms in D's home. P also provided landscaping, exterior painting, and other exterior decorating services, which were billed separately. P ultimately performed interior design services for three of D's houses. D relied on P's creativity and vision as well as her choice, arrangement, and placement of each tangible item. D allegedly accepted and approved plaintiff's designs and all furniture and items that P chose. P delivered bills to defendants on a regular basis. The bills included 'list prices' for the various items. The 'list prices' consisted of the price of furniture and other items that P paid her suppliers, i.e., the 'net price,' and P's fee for creative design services. P alleges that this fee arrangement is standard in the interior design industry. She billed D in the same manner for her work at each of the three houses. D paid the bills until June 2009. Thereafter, D made only partial payments or no payments; their last payment was made on or about March 14, 2010. P's final bill for services was delivered in July 2010. As of July 2010, D had failed to pay $52,859.04 under the contract. On or about May 11, 2015, P served a summons and complaint alleging breach of contract, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and account stated against D. D moved to dismiss based upon the statute of limitations. D argued that the contract was predominantly for the sale of goods and was therefore subject to the four-year statute of limitations provided in UCC 2-725. D argues that the undated contract between P and D has a provision that states that a design fee of $1,200 will be charged at the start of the job, but that provision had been crossed out. It also states that the products and materials were to be shown to D, purchased by P, and 'charged at List price,' that 'all advice and design suggestions such as construction, cabinetry, painting and using client's existing items will be charged at $200/hour,' and that 'all purchases including Tax and Delivery will be paid in full before delivery.' There is also a handwritten contract dated June 10, 2009, which states: 'I Kristen Swenson, will purchase all furniture and accessories shown in photos or in person by Karolina Hagman through Karolina Hagman and only from Karolina Hagman. 'I will not purchase or get similar or actual furniture or accessories through someone else or from somewhere else as shown to me by Karolina Hagman. 'I will allow Karolina Hagman and team to photograph and to publish or have published photos to her of my house and the inside of the rooms in Tuxedo Park, NY.' P claims that she explained to D that her creative services fee would be 'built, as mark-ups, into the cost of the goods/materials' charged to D and that D allegedly understood the fee structure. P billed D a $200/hour consulting fee. This fee was separate and included specific items, such as construction, cabinetry, and painting. Of the $52,859.04 outstanding, P claims that only $4,000 (for 20 hours) is for consulting work in connection with the exterior of the home, kitchen layout, and bathroom layout. The Court granted D's motion to dismiss the complaint. The court reasoned that because the contract discusses 'products and materials,' and the large majority of the outstanding bills involve goods, the services are 'incidental' to the purchase of goods, and the four-year statute of limitations applies, barring the complaint. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.