Hagman v. Swenson

In June 2007, Kristen Swenson (defendant) hired Karolina Hagman (plaintiff) to provide interior-design services for Swenson’s New York home. Hagman was an expert in interior design, and she developed a creative vision for rooms and homes. Hagman made suggestions on cabinetry, construction, painting, and placement of Swenson’s existing items. Hagman also suggested the purchasing of new furniture and tangible goods and, with approval, purchased them on Swenson’s behalf. Swenson relied on Hagman to choose, place, and arrange tangible items in Swenson’s home. As to pricing, the list prices for tangible items were higher than Hagman’s “net” price, which was a standard industry practice to cover a designer’s services. Hagman also billed $200/hour for consulting on specific matters, such as landscaping, construction, or painting. Under the parties’ contract, Hagman could photograph and publish pictures of Swenson’s home to promote Hagman’s services. As of July 2010, Swenson had not paid $52,859 under the contract. In May 2015, Hagman sued Swenson for breach of contract, among other claims. Swenson filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on various grounds, including the statute of limitations. Swenson argued that the contract was primarily one for the purchase of goods and accordingly governed by Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) § 2-725(1), which provided a four-year statute of limitations. The trial court agreed and dismissed the contract claim based on the finding that a large majority of the outstanding bills were for tangible products and materials and that services were merely incidental to the purchase of goods. Hagman appealed.