The Arkansas Court of Appeals recently affirmed a lower court's ruling in a contract dispute involving Tatum Yount and Kenneth Carter against ICOR Construction, LLC. The court's decision, delivered on November 4, 2026, confirmed that the statute of frauds did not apply to the parties' contract and upheld the exclusion of an expert witness's testimony. This ruling has implications for how construction contracts are interpreted in Arkansas.

The dispute originated from a contract entered into on May 31, 2022, for ICOR to construct a building on Carter's property for $79,140. Yount and Carter paid a 50 percent deposit and later requested that ICOR not perform some of the contracted services. After ICOR completed the agreed work, they sought payment of $17,420, which Yount and Carter failed to pay. This led ICOR to file a lawsuit alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

In response, Yount and Carter claimed that no contract existed but also filed a counterclaim asserting that a contract for the sale of goods was in place under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). They argued that ICOR had failed to provide goods that conformed to the contract and sought reimbursement for the money paid. The case was heard in the Calhoun County Circuit Court, where the judge ruled in favor of ICOR.

During the trial, ICOR presented evidence showing that they had fulfilled their contractual obligations. Two of their employees testified about the construction work performed, including the installation of a concrete slab and a pole barn. ICOR's owner, Steve Ivy, stated that he inspected the work and found no deficiencies. In contrast, Yount and Carter presented witnesses who claimed that the construction was flawed, citing issues such as an unlevel concrete slab and improperly centered trusses.

Following the trial, the circuit court ruled that the statute of frauds did not apply to the contract. The court explained, "the primary purpose of the agreement was for the construction of a pole barn that defendants intended to turn into a residential dwelling. It was not for the sale of goods." The court found that ICOR had met its obligations and that Yount and Carter had breached the contract by refusing to pay the remaining balance. The court awarded ICOR $17,420 plus $2,500 in attorney's fees.

On appeal, Yount and Carter argued that the circuit court erred in determining the nature of the contract and in excluding the testimony of an expert witness, Chad Herman. They contended that the contract was primarily for the sale of goods, which would invoke the statute of frauds requiring a written agreement. However, the court found that the predominant purpose of the contract was for services, not goods.

The court's opinion noted, "In determining the predominant factor of a contract, we can look at the language of the contract, the manner in which the transaction was billed, and the mobility of the goods." The court concluded that the services element was dominant in this case, affirming the lower court's ruling that the UCC and its statute of frauds did not apply.

Regarding the exclusion of Herman's testimony, the court found that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion. Herman's qualifications were questioned during the trial, as he admitted he had never held a contractor's license due to failing the required test. The court ruled that his lack of a license, combined with insufficient evidence of his expertise in the specific area of construction relevant to the case, justified the exclusion of his testimony.

The court stated, "Whether a witness qualifies as an expert in a particular field is a matter within the circuit court’s discretion, and we will not reverse such a decision absent an abuse of that discretion." The court ultimately upheld the circuit court's decision, affirming that the exclusion of Herman's testimony did not prejudice Yount and Carter's case.

This ruling has significant implications for future construction contract disputes in Arkansas. It clarifies the interpretation of contracts involving services and goods, emphasizing that construction contracts are typically viewed as service agreements. The decision also reinforces the importance of expert witness qualifications, particularly in construction-related cases.

Looking ahead, Yount and Carter may consider further legal options, including a potential appeal to a higher court. However, details about any related cases or future proceedings were not available in the court filing.