## Facts

- Thomas and Cheryl Singleton privately sold Brian D. Felley a used 1991 Ford Taurus (about 126,000 miles) for $5,800 after a test drive and discussions at the Singletons’ home.
- Felley testified the Singletons stated the car was in “good shape,” in “good mechanical condition,” and “well maintained,” and disclosed only two minor issues.
- Within days, the clutch deteriorated to the point Felley could not shift; he paid $942.76 for clutch removal and repair (invoice dated June 18, 1997).
- Within the first month, serious brake problems emerged; Felley paid $971.18 for brake repairs (invoice dated July 9, 1997) and $429.09 for additional brake work (invoice dated September 16, 1997).
- Robert Hanover, an underbody specialist who performed brake work, testified the rear brakes were not functioning because calipers had locked up; repairs included new rear calipers and replacement of pads and rotors on both front and rear brakes.
- Hanover testified brake problems like those observed take considerable time to develop, supporting an inference they existed at the time of sale; the clutch and brake defects were also described as likely preexisting.
- The Singletons acknowledged making statements that the car was in good mechanical shape or condition.

## Issues

1. Whether sellers’ statements that a used car is in “good mechanical condition,” “good shape,” and well maintained are affirmations of fact creating an express warranty under UCC § 2-313, rather than nonactionable opinion or puffery.
2. Whether the trial court’s findings that an express warranty existed, was part of the basis of the bargain, and was breached were against the manifest weight of the evidence.

## Decision

- The Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, affirmed the judgment for Felley.
- The court held the Singletons’ statements about “good mechanical condition” and similar assurances were affirmations of fact relating to the car and created an express warranty.
- The court rejected the argument that the statements were mere puffery or unenforceable lay opinion.
- The court held the evidence supported a finding that the vehicle failed to conform to the warranty at the time of sale, and the trial court’s findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The damages award (approximately $2,300 in repair costs) was upheld.

## Legal Principles

- Under UCC § 2-313, an express warranty is created when a seller’s affirmation of fact or promise relating to the goods becomes part of the basis of the bargain, requiring the goods to conform to that affirmation or promise.
- Affirmations made during negotiations are presumed to be part of the basis of the bargain unless the seller proves otherwise.
- Statements describing a used car’s present “mechanical condition” can be treated as objective representations about existing condition, not mere sales talk.
- A seller’s lack of specialized mechanical knowledge does not, by itself, prevent a statement about condition from constituting an express warranty.
- Breach may be inferred where defects manifest shortly after sale and competent testimony supports that the defects likely existed at the time of sale; appellate review of such findings applies a manifest-weight-of-the-evidence standard.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed liability and damages because the sellers’ assurances that the used car was in good mechanical condition were express warranties forming part of the bargain, and the evidence supported that preexisting clutch and brake defects meant the car did not conform to those warranties at the time of sale.


Felley v. Singleton, 705 N.E.2d 930 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999)