## 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

1. Whether the “as is” sale excluded implied warranties under the UCC so that Pelc could not recover on an implied-warranty theory.
2. 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.
3. 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.


Pelc v. Simmons, 620 N.E.2d 12, 249 III. App. 3D 852 (1993)