840 (Pa.Super.Ct.1999) (“ ‘[w]hen the transaction involves predominantly the rendition of services, the fact that tangible, movable goods may be involved in the performance of a contract does not bring the contract under the [Uniform Commercial C]ode.’ ” (quoting Whitmer v. Bell Tel. Co. of Pa., 361 Pa.Super. 282, 522 A.2d 584, 587 (1987) (other citation omitted))); Gee v. Chattahoochee Tractor Sales, Inc., 172 Ga.App. 351, 323 S.E.2d 176, 178 (1984) (repairs performed on tractor, which included the replacement of engine parts, constituted a service and not a “sale” under the UCC, as the primary purpose of the contract was to repair the vehicle as opposed to the sale of any component part of the engine); cf. Lobianco v. Prop. Prot., Inc., 292 Pa.Super. 346, 437 A.2d 417, 419 (1981) (<HOLDING>). Here ADT did not enter into a contract with
holding that the installation of a burglar alarm system was a sale of goods within the meaning of the ucc 13 pa consstat  2105a holding that a statement of conditional sale of goods can be filed with the state auditor before the delivery of goods where statute says the statement must be filed within ten days of delivery of goods 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 that a contract for the design manufacture and installation of two furnaces was predominantly a contract for the sale of goods and therefore subject to the uccs fouryear statute of limitations holding that ucc impliedwarranty action requires pleading of facts in respect to sale of goods