Supplying and installing carpet in an existing facility is a far cry from manufacturing and shipping the metal components of a substantial building project and from constructing, from those parts, the metal shell of a service station. In Dixie Store Fixtures and Sales Co. v. Supreme Fixture Co., 376 So.2d 703 (Ala. 1979), the second lowest bidder (a licensed contractor) on a contract to supply and install kitchen equipment in a new county hospital filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration of the defendant's right to award the contract to the lowest bidder (a contractor not licensed as a general contractor in Alabama). The trial court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss and this Court affirmed:
There is little case law interpreting Section 34-8-1. In Dixie Store Fixtures Sales Company v. Supreme Fixture Company, 376 So.2d 703 (Ala. 1979), the Supreme Court of Alabama affirmed a trial court holding that a company which supplied and installed food service equipment was not required to be a general contractor under Section 34-8-1. However, the court did not explicate its reasoning, stating that its decision was based on the ore tenus rule.
In determining whether a person has engaged in the type of work covered by this definition, Alabama courts have looked at many factors, such as, the intent of the parties, the amount of control by the person, and the type of work performed by the person. Herbert v. Birmingham-Jefferson Civic Ctr. Auth., 694 F.2d 240, 242 (11th Cir. 1982) (holding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether a person engaged in general contracting where the parties referred to the person as a consultant and the type of work performed by the person may not have constituted general contracting);Dixie Store Fixtures Sales Co. v. Supreme Fixture Co. 376 So.2d 703, 705 (Ala. 1979) (holding that a company that contracted to supply and install kitchen equipment in a new hospital did not engage in general contracting); Central Alabama Home Health Servs.. Inc. v. Eubank, ___ So.2d ___ 2000 WL 1603828, at *3 (Ala.Civ.App. Oct. 27, 2000) (denying a plaintiffs motion for judgment as a matter of law on whether a person engaged in general contracting where the plaintiff hired the person as a consultant, the person did not have personal responsibility for ensuring the completion of the work, and the person was subject to the ultimate control of the plaintiff). The court recognizes that this code section defines a general contractor for the purposes of a statutory licensing scheme.
Therefore, the successful bidder for carpet replacement is not required to be a licensed general contractor. Dixie Store Fixtures Sales Co. v. Supreme Fixture Co., 376 So.2d 703 (Ala. 1979). McCord makes passing reference to ยง 40-12-84, Code 1975, as further grounds for invalidating the award of the contract to Stokes.