Facts
- Mark Simmons sold Aubree Pelc a used 1978 Pontiac Sunbird.
- The vehicle displayed a sign stating it was sold “as is.”
- During pre-sale discussions, Simmons said he had rebuilt the engine.
- Simmons also stated that the only thing wrong with the car was the air conditioning.
- Pelc purchased the car based on the negotiations and took possession.
- After the purchase, Pelc experienced multiple mechanical problems, including serious engine-related issues (such as excessive oil consumption and poor performance).
- Pelc attempted to rescind the deal and get her money back, but Simmons refused.
- Pelc filed a small-claims action in the circuit court.
- After a bench trial, the circuit court entered judgment for Pelc for $1,200 and included a provision allowing Simmons to retake the car if he paid $1,400.
- Simmons appealed, challenging the judgment as unsupported by the evidence and inconsistent with an “as is” sale.
Issues
- Whether the “as is” sale excluded implied warranties under the UCC so that Pelc could not recover on an implied-warranty theory.
- Whether Simmons’s statements that he rebuilt the engine and that only the air conditioning was wrong created an express warranty under UCC § 2-313 despite the “as is” language.
- Whether Pelc proved enough at trial—both as to breach and the cause of the post-sale problems—to support the judgment, or whether the decision was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Decision
- The appellate court reversed the circuit court’s judgment for Pelc.
- The “as is” language effectively excluded implied warranties.
- Simmons’s statements were not treated as creating an express warranty in the circumstances of this private, “as is” used-car sale.
- The record did not sufficiently show what caused the vehicle’s mechanical failure in a way that supported liability and damages against Simmons.
Legal Principles
- A conspicuous “as is” term generally excludes implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose under UCC § 2-316.
- An express warranty under UCC § 2-313 requires an affirmation of fact or promise that becomes part of the basis of the bargain; general statements about condition or repair history may be treated as non-warranty statements depending on context.
- Even when a buyer claims warranty liability, the buyer must prove more than post-sale malfunction; the buyer must present adequate proof tying the complained-of condition and damages to a breach attributable to the seller.
- On review of a bench trial, an appellate court may reverse when the judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence—meaning the opposite result is clearly apparent from the record.
Conclusion
Pelc v. Simmons reversed a small-claims judgment for the buyer because the car was sold “as is,” which barred implied-warranty recovery, and the seller’s remarks about rebuilding the engine and the air conditioning did not establish an express warranty on this record; the buyer also failed to present sufficient proof connecting the post-sale engine problems to a breach by the seller.