cites to common law distinctions between “direct damages” and “consequential damages.” See, e.g., Term, Gas Pipeline Co. v. Technip USA Corp., 2008 WL 3876141, at *7—11 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] August 21, 2008, pet. denied). Although the Supply Agreement contains elements of both the sale of goods and the provision of services, the sale of goods is the dominant theme of the Agreement. Consequently, article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) applies and common law principles do not apply to the extent they conflict with provisions of the UCC. See Tex. Bus. & Comm.Code § 2.102; Graybar Elec. Co. v. LEM & Assocs., L.L.C., 252 S.W.3d 536, 542 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2008, no pet.); see also El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Mineo Oil & Gas, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 309, 313 (Tex.1999) (<HOLDING>); Natural Gas Clearinghouse v. Midgard Energy
holding provision in oil and gas lease authorizing lessor to use gas for agricultural purposes contained no geographical limitations holding that contract for buying and selling oil and gas was a transaction involving goods and thus governed by the ucc recognizing that a metes and bounds partition when land contains oil and gas results in a serious loss to a coowner who receives a lot without oil or gas under the surface with the loss due solely to the division of the land holding that a contract for the design construction and installation of a water tank was predominantly a contract for the sale of goods under the ucc holding assignment of oil and gas lease is subject to business and commerce code section 2601