A minority (one judge) in the Supreme Court found that in view of the circumstances the installation was to be seen as a service. The majority (4 judges) discussed the application of the consumer purchase act and the consumer service act, and found that there was in this case a mixed contract, and that it was under the circumstances not wise to distinguish between them in view of the difficulties that may arise in determining causes and the calculation of a price reduction.
Taking into consideration the considerably higher value of the heating pan and that the installation itself was not very complex and that the heating pan retained its identity,
the Supreme Court found that the contract was that of a contract of sale rather than a contract of service. Therefore the short prescription period of the consumer purchase act would apply.