See Ole Mexican Foods, Inc., 285 Ga. at 291 (stating that although “the label that contracting parties affix to an agreement is not necessarily determinative of the agreement’s predominant purpose,” it “ ‘is a good barometer of the parties’ intentions’ ” and “ ‘can constitute potent evidence of that purpose.’ ”); Paramount Contracting Co. v. DPS Industries, Inc., 309 Ga. App. 113, 116 (709 SE2d 288) (2011) (finding sale of good was the predominant purpose of a contract providing for both the sale and delivery of dirt, in part because the contract did not provide separate pricing for the delivery of the dirt and the delivery cost accounted for, at best, only 20 percent of the value of the dirt); Southern Tank & Equipment Co. v. Zartic, Inc., 221 Ga. App. 503, 505 (471 SE2d 587) (1996) (<HOLDING>); J. Lee Gregory, Inc., 209 Ga. App. at 288 (1)
holding the predominant purpose of a contract containing both sale and nonsale aspects was the sale of goods in part because the portion of the cost attributable to nonsale elements was less than onehalf of the total contract price holding contract for sale of water which did not specify price was unenforceable because price of water was essence of contract holding that an attorney approval clause in a contract for the sale of real estate was a part of that contract and would have to be satisfied for the underlying contract to be enforceable holding that one method of computing damages for a breach of contract is the contract price less the reasonable cost of completion holding that the measure of damages for the breach of a contract of sale where no fraud is shown is the difference between the contract price and the market price of the goods on the date of the breach