Governing Law: CL vs UCC — NextGen Bar practice question

A boutique orders 400 dresses to be sewn to its own exclusive design, from fabric the manufacturer will buy, for delivery in four months. Nothing has been cut or made when the contract is signed. A dispute later arises, and the manufacturer argues that Article 2 cannot apply because the dresses did not yet exist and were unique to the boutique at the time of contracting, so there were no 'goods' in existence to be sold when the parties agreed.

Does UCC Article 2 govern the contract for the dresses?

Option A. Incorrect answer. No, because the dresses did not exist when the contract was formed.
Option B. Incorrect answer. No, because custom items are treated as service contracts at common law.
Option C. Correct answer. Yes, because specially manufactured and not-yet-existing items are still goods.Correct
Option D. Incorrect answer. Yes, but only once the dresses are completed and delivered to the boutique.

Why

Section 2-105 defines goods as things movable at the time they are identified to the contract, and it expressly includes things specially manufactured for the buyer. Future goods and custom-made items therefore still count as goods, so Article 2 governs the dress order (C). A misunderstands the timing rule: goods need not exist at formation, only be identifiable and movable when matched to the deal. B wrongly equates 'custom' with 'service'; making goods to a buyer's specifications is still a sale of goods. D correctly senses that identification matters but draws the wrong line — Article 2 governs the contract from formation, not merely from completion; the dresses simply become identified when they are designated for this boutique.

Why