In Angelo v. Hawaiian Rock Products, CV0174-93 (Super. Ct. Guam Apr. 29, 1994), Hawaiian Rock delivered to the work site ready-mixed cement for use by the contractor and subcontractor there for the construction of a storage building. Id. at 1. Plaintiffs were employees of the subcontractor. While the cement was being poured, a boom attached to Hawaiian Rock's truck struck the plaintiffs causing injury. Hawaiian Rock filed a motion for summary judgment alleging that the plaintiffs' cause of action against it was barred pursuant to the Guam Workmen's Compensation Act. Hawaiian Rock argued that the general contractor was its and the Plaintiffs' statutory employer. Id. at 2. Plaintiffs argued that Hawaiian Rock was merely delivering cement to a purchaser, the general contractor, and that the use of Hawaiian Rock's pump truck and operator was necessary to accomplish the delivery and complete the sale for cement. Id. The court framed the issue as whether the general contractor was the statutory employer of Hawaiian Rock and proceeded to examine Guam Government Code Section 37002(j). Id. at 4. The court noted: "Although a plain reading of the statute would indicate that the Guam legislator intended the word "employer" to be interpreted broadly, it is generally accepted that a contractor is not the statutory employer of employees of material suppliers who deliver materials to the work site. 1C A. Larson, The Law of Workmen's Compensation, 49.16(h) at 9-100 (1993). "The compensation act does not apply where the transaction between the immediate employer and the person sought to be held liable as his employer is that of purchase and sale, . . ." 99 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation 107 (1958). "The rule stated is subject to the exception that when the contract to sell is accompanied by an undertaking by either party to render substantial services in connection with the goods sold, that party is a contractor within the meaning of the statute." Bendure v. Great Lakes Pipe Line Company, 199 Kan. 696, 433 P.2d 558, 564 (1967)." Id. The court held that Hawaiian Rock did not render substantial services in connection with the delivery of the cement and that it was not a statutory employee of the general contractor under the Guam Workmen's Compensation Act. Id. at 6. There was no contract, written or oral, delineating the relationship between Hawaiian Rock and the general contractor. However, Hawaiian Rock submitted a document labelled "equipment rental" to establish the existence of a statutory employer-employee relationship. Id. at 5. It was contended that that document established that Hawaiian Rock was hired by the general contractor to pour concrete at the construction site and that the general contractor was to be charged an hourly rate for the rental of the pump truck and the pump truck operator. Id. Hawaiian Rock alleged that the case did not merely involve a delivery of cement but rather a more intricate process which was undertaken by Hawaiian Rock requiring it to render substantial services in the construction project. Id. The court rejected Hawaiian Rock's arguments and found that no contract existed to support Hawaiian Rock's contention that its relationship with the general contractor was more than that of a purchaser and seller involving the delivery of the product. Id. Among the facts relied upon by the court was that it was undisputed that the subcontractor provided the labor on the project and the cement was poured into trenches with partial forms constructed by the plaintiffs and other employees of the subcontractor. Id. at 5-6. The subcontractor's employees spread and levelled the cement after it was poured into the forms, and Hawaiian Rock was not involved in the finishing of the concrete nor the removal of the forms after it had set. Id. The fact that delivery required the use of a pump truck and seventy five foot boom did not warrant a finding of substantial services rendered when compared with the fact that Hawaiian Rock had only spent a total of three hours on the project which included travel time to and from the work site. Id. Additionally, the heavy equipment and the experienced pump truck operator were necessary to facilitate the delivery of cement and that the sole responsibility of Hawaiian Rock was to deliver the cement and pour it where the foreman directed. Id. The assessment of these facts led the court to conclude that Hawaiian Rock did not render substantial services in connection with the delivery to justify an inference that Hawaiian Rock was the statutory employee of the general contractor. Id.