2015 IL App (1st) 123452

FOURTH DIVISION

 December 31, 2015

No. 1-12-3452

BOARD OF MANAGERS OF PARK POINT AT WHEELING 

CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION,

 Plaintiff-Appellant,

 v.

PARK POINT AT WHEELING, LLC, S.M. SMITH AND SONS, INC. 

d/b/a SMITH AND SONS, INC., SMITH FAMILY CONSTRUCTION, 

INC., HIRSCH AND ASSOCIATES, LLC, MIDWEST MASONRY, 

INC., G.W. THIEL, INC., VIVIAN J. SMITH, SILVERLINE 

BUILDING PRODUCTS CORPORATION, and THERMOLOCK 

MANUFACTURING, LLC, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

)

) 

)

)

)

)

Appeal from 

the Circuit Court 

of Cook County

08-L-09404

Honorable

Lynn M. Egan, 

Judge Presiding

PRESIDING JUSTICE McBRIDE delivered the judgment of the court, with opinion.

Justice Palmer and Justice Gordon concurred in the judgment and opinion.

OPINION

¶ 1 This interlocutory appeal concerns the dismissal of claims that various parties involved in 

the design, construction, and sale of a condominium complex that was completed in 2004 

breached the implied warranty of habitability by incorporating latent defects into the units and 

common elements. The implied warranty regarding latent defects in new construction is 

generally imposed against builders or builder-sellers only and the trial court found that the 

homeowners' group, Board of Managers of Park Point at Wheeling Condominium Association,

failed to state a claim against the project architect, Hirsch and Associates, LLC (Hirsch). The 

condominium association asks us to recognize a claim against the architect by extending Minton 

v. The Richards Group of Chicago, 116 Ill. App. 3d 852, 452 N.E.2d 835 (1983), in which the 

court extended the implied warranty to a subcontractor because the builder-seller was judgment-
1-12-3452

- 2 -

proof and the solvent subcontractor was the cause of a latent defect. The second issue on appeal 

is whether warranty disclaimer language in each condominium purchase contract was 

conspicuous and protected not only the developer-seller, but also its original and successor 

general contractors and subcontractors. The condominium association also asks us to reverse the 

denial of a motion for reconsideration.

¶ 2 The condominium project at issue is known as Park Point at Wheeling and consists of 

three midrise buildings and 128 units situated on almost six acres of land at 620, 640, and 660 

McHenry Road. The architect's plans for the condominium complex were completed in 

approximately 2000 and construction of the buildings was completed between 2001 and 2004. 

The architect is not alleged to have taken part in the construction or sale of the units.

¶ 3 The condominium association filed suit in 2008 and after a series of amendments 

culminating in a sixth amended complaint filed in 2011, asserted a total of eight claims against 

architect Hirsch; the project's developer-seller, Park Point at Wheeling, LLC; the original and 

successor general contractors, S.M. Smith & Sons, Inc., d/b/a Smith & Sons and Smith Family 

Construction, Inc. (collectively Smith); the carpentry subcontractor, G.W. Thiel, Inc. (G.W. 

Thiel); the masonry subcontractor, Midwest Masonry, Inc. (Midwest); the window and patio 

door manufacturers; and their agents. Parties that we have not identified by name were either 

dismissed by court order or settlement agreement and are not participating in this interlocutory 

appeal. Counts II and III are the implied warranty of habitability claims and are the only counts 

at issue here. Count II was directed at the developer-seller. Count III concerned the architect and 

the other defendants.

¶ 4 The condominium association complained that water and air infiltration was damaging

interior flooring and finishes. The association attributed the infiltration to latent defects in the 
1-12-3452

- 3 -

design, material, and construction of the common elements and limited common elements, 

including masonry walls which lacked intermediate support, windows and patio doors that 

leaked, and flashing, caps, and dams that were insufficient to divert water. These alleged defects

did not become apparent until 2007. The estimated cost of repairs exceeded $4 million. The 

association also alleged, on information and belief, that the developer-seller was insolvent and 

incapable of satisfying a $4 million award. The association further alleged, on information and 

belief, that it had no recourse against the original general contractor, because that entity was 

insolvent and no longer doing business, and had no recourse against the successor general 

contractor, because, on information and belief, that entity had either no assets or insufficient 

assets to satisfy a $4 million award.

¶ 5 The trial court orders dismissing the implied warranty of habitability claims pursuant to 

sections 2-615 and 2-619(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure (Code) allow for this interlocutory 

appeal pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 304(a). 735 ILCS 5/2-615, 2-619(a) (West 2012); Ill. S.

Ct. R. 304(a) (eff. Feb. 26, 2010).

¶ 6 Turning first to the dismissal of the claim against the architect, we offer the following 

overview of the law. We note that the theory of implied warranty of habitability in construction 

arose because the application of the common law principles of caveat emptor and merger meant 

that a disappointed new home buyer had little or no recourse against a builder that erected a 

defective residence. Petersen v. Hubschman Construction Co., 76 Ill. 2d 31, 38, 389 N.E. 1154, 

1179 (1979). Historically, a new home buyer took the property at his own risk and if he failed to 

discover defects before the transfer, caveat emptor prevented him from maintaining a suit against 

the builder. Petersen, 76 Ill. 2d at 38, 389 N.E.2d at 1179. Similarly, under the merger doctrine, 

all agreements between a new home seller and buyer merged in the deed and if the document did 
1-12-3452

- 4 -

not include reservations, once the buyer received the document, he had no right to complain 

about the quality of his new property. Petersen, 76 Ill. 2d at 38, 389 N.E.2d at 1179. 

¶ 7 The doctrine of caveat emptor, however, is based on an expectation that buyer and seller 

possess comparable skill and experience and engage in an arm's length transaction. Tuck v. 

Downing, 76 Ill. 71, 93 (1875) ("The parties were dealing at arm's length and on equal grounds, 

and their own judgments were to be their guide in coming to a conclusion."). Implying a 

warranty of habitability into the contract for the sale of a new residence was a judicial response 

to the fact that in the twentieth century, new home buyers and sellers were no longer in an equal 

bargaining position. Caveat emptor fell out of favor as home building methods and governmental 

regulations became more complex, builders grew in scale and became specialized, and the 

ordinary home buyer no longer had the skill or training to make a meaningful inspection and 

discover latent defects. Tavares v. Horstman, 542 P.2d 1275 (Wyo. 1975). 

¶ 8 Our supreme court has cited three public policy reasons for adopting the implied 

warranty of habitability doctrine in this jurisdiction: (1) the modern home buyer is unusually 

dependent upon the competency and honesty of the builder rather than on the buyer's own ability 

to discern latent defects, (2) the buyer is making the largest single investment of his or her life, 

and, (3) in fairness, the repair costs of defective construction should be borne by the builderseller who created the latent defects. 1324 W. Pratt Condominium Ass'n v. Platt Construction 

Group, Inc., 404 Ill. App. 3d 611, 616-17, 936 N.E.2d 1093, 1098 (2010) (Pratt I). 

¶ 9 To avoid the merger doctrine, the implied warranty has been treated as an independent 

undertaking to the covenant to convey and one that survives the delivery of the deed. Redarowicz 

v. Ohlendorf, 92 Ill. 2d 171, 182, 441 N.E.2d 324, 329 (1982); Petersen, 76 Ill. 2d at 41, 389 

N.E.2d at 1158.
1-12-3452

- 5 -

¶ 10 By the mid 1970s, about half of the United States had abandoned caveat emptor in the 

context of new home sales. Redarowicz, 92 Ill. 2d at 182, 441 N.E.2d at 329. In Illinois, the state 

supreme court first adopted the implied warranty of habitability doctrine in 1972 in a landlordtenant case and in 1979 in Petersen the court expanded it to contract for the sale of a new home 

by the builder-seller. Pratt I, 404 Ill. App. 3d at 616, 936 N.E.2d at 1098-98 (citing Jack Spring, 

Inc. v. Little, 50 Ill. 2d 351, 280 N.E.2d 208 (1972),

1 Petersen, 76 Ill. 2d 31, 389 N.E.2d 1154).

In Petersen, the buyers found defects in the home during the construction phase and attempted to 

negotiate a compromise with the builder-seller, but, numerous problems persisted. When the 

buyers refused to close on the purchase, the builder-seller declared a forfeiture, and then the 

buyers sued for return of their earnest money and for the value of labor and materials they 

contributed to the project. Petersen, 76 Ill. 2d at 35-36, 389 N.E.2d at 1155-56. The home's 

problems included a defective front door, bay window, basement floor, and problems with the 

interior drywall and the exterior siding. Petersen, 76 Ill. 2d at 36, 389 N.E.2d at 1156. In 

defining the warranty of habitability of construction, the supreme court characterized the use of 

the term of "habitability" as "unfortunate" because that term is easily misconstrued and implies 

 1

In the landlord tenant case, the supreme court explained that the common law rule absolving a 

landlord of any obligation to repair housing dated to the agrarian economy of the early Middle 

Ages, when the farmable land was more important than whatever structures might be included in 

the lease and the tenant was capable of making any necessary repairs. Jack Spring, 50 Ill. 2d at 

363-64, 280 N.E.2d at 215-16. Unlike the farmer who was likely to lease one piece of land for 

his entire life, the modern urban tenant is mobile, lacks the skill to maintain structures, and 

cannot justify the effort and expense of repairing leased property. Jack Spring, 50 Ill. 2d at 363-

64, 280 N.E.2d at 215-16.
1-12-3452

- 6 -

that the warranty is satisfied when a house is merely capable of being inhabited. Petersen, 76 Ill. 

2d at 41, 389 N.E2.d at 1158. In fact, prior to Petersen, the warranty of habitability was found to 

be violated only where a home did not keep out the elements or provide a reasonably safe place 

to live. Park v. Sohn, 90 Ill. App. 3d 794, 797-98, 414 N.E.2d 1, 3-4 (1980). The supreme court 

therefore suggested that the meaning of the warranty would be more accurately conveyed 

through language similar to the language used in the Uniform Commercial Code's warranties of 

merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. Peterson, 76 Ill. 2d at 41-42, 389 N.E.2d at 

1158 (citing sections 2-314 and 2-315 of the Uniform Commercial Code (now 735 ILCS 5/2-

314, 2-315 (West 2012))).

¶ 11 The new home buyer has a right to expect to receive what was bargained for and what the 

builder-seller agreed to construct and convey, which is a house that is reasonably fit for its 

intended use as a residence. Petersen, 76 Ill. 2d at 40, 389 N.E.2d at 1158. The trial court ruled, 

and the supreme court agreed, that Petersen's builder-seller did not substantially perform the 

contract, could not declare a forfeiture, and had to return the earnest money and the value of 

labor and materials that were contributed by the buyers. Petersen, 76 Ill. 2d at 35, 389 N.E.2d at 

1155-56.

¶ 12 Since then, the class of defendants who impliedly warrant the habitability of their 

construction work has expanded only somewhat from the builder-sellers of new homes. For 

instance, in Tassan, the court applied the doctrine to the developer-seller of a new condominium 

unit. Tassan v. United Development Co., 88 Ill. App. 3d 581, 410 N.E.2d 902 (1980). The court 

reiterated that the fundamental reason for imposing the implied warranty regarding construction 

work is the unusual dependency of the buyer/homeowner:

"Purchasers from a builder-seller depend on his ability to construct and sell a home of 
1-12-3452

- 7 -

sound structure. Purchasers from a developer-seller depend on his ability to hire a 

contractor capable of building a home of sound structure. The buyers here had no control 

over [the developer's] choice of a builder. [The developer] stood in the best position to 

know which contractor could perform the work adequately. The dependent relationship 

here between the buyers and [the developer] is the same as if [the developer] was a 

builder-seller. Necessarily, we hold that [the developer] could be deemed to have made 

an implied warranty of habitability in this case." (Emphases added.) Tassan, 88 Ill. App. 

3d at 587, 410 N.E.2d at 908. 

¶ 13 In Herlihy, the implied warranty was applied to a developer-seller with respect to 

construction defects in common elements of a new condominium complex (Herlihy v. Dunbar 

Builders Corp., 92 Ill. App. 3d 310, 415 N.E.2d 1224 (1980)), and in VonHoldt, the court 

extended the doctrine to a contractor that created latent defects by disregarding the architect's 

plans for constructing a multilevel home addition which increased the size of the original 

residence by almost 40% (VonHoldt v. Barba & Barba Construction, Inc., 175 Ill. 2d 426, 677 

N.E.2d 836 (1997)). 

¶ 14 We point out that regardless of the exact role the defendant played in each of these 

projects, the implied warranty of habitability claim centered on the quality of construction work. 

Regardless of whether a new property is a single family home, a condominium unit, or a major 

addition, the ordinary person is not knowledgeable of contemporary construction practices and 

must to a substantial degree rely on the integrity and skill of the builder or on the entity that has 

chosen the builder. Petersen, 76 Ill. 2d at 40, 389 N.E.2d at 1158 ("In most instances, the latent 

defects would not be discoverable by a [buyer] whether the house is complete or incomplete at 

the time the contract is entered into."); Herlihy, 92 Ill. App. 3d at 315, 415 N.E.2d at 1227
1-12-3452

- 8 -

(stating, "[buyers] of condominium units, just as buyers of single family residences, often are not 

knowledgeable in construction practices"); VonHoldt, 175 Ill. 2d at 432, 677 N.E.2d at 839 ("the 

owner of the house usually has little knowledge regarding the construction" and is incapable of

discovering hidden defects even through the exercise of ordinary and reasonable care).

¶ 15 Thus, generally speaking, only builders or builder-sellers warrant the habitability of their 

construction work. Engineers and design professionals such as the Hirsch architectural firm 

provide a service and do not warrant the accuracy of their plans and specifications. 5 Phillip L. 

Bruner & Patrick J. O’Connor, Jr., Bruner & O’Connor on Construction Law § 17:24 (2002)

(discussing warranty liability of design professional); Sam A. Mackie, Architect’s Negligence, 33 

Am. Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 57, § 5 (1995) ("[A]bsent an express contractual provision to the 

contrary, an architect does not guarantee the owner a perfect plan or a satisfactory result. The 

architect is not liable for mere errors of judgment, and liability attaches only when the architect's 

conduct falls below the standard of skill and care exercised by others engaged in the same 

profession, and in the same locality.").

¶ 16 In fact, breach of implied warranty of habitability claims against design professionals 

have already been rejected in Illinois and most other jurisdictions. For instance, in Paukovitz, a 

new homeowner in Marseilles, Illinois, sued the designer of his residence for breach of the 

implied warranty of habitability after discovering that his home suffered from structural damage 

because the basement walls were inadequately supported. Paukovitz v. Imperial Homes, Inc., 271 

Ill. App. 3d 1037, 659 N.E.2d 473 (1995). The home was built into a hillside and situated so that 

the basement door would be at ground level. Paukovitz, 271 Ill. App. 3d at 1038, 659 N.E.2d at 

474. The home designer had sold the plans as well as some of the home's shell materials to the 

builder. Paukovitz, 271 Ill. App. 3d at 1038, 659 N.E.2d at 475. The trial court dismissed the 
1-12-3452

- 9 -

homeowner's breach of warranty claims against the designer and the appellate court affirmed the 

ruling, holding that the designer's role did not subject it to a claim for breach of the warranty of 

habitability of the builder's work. Paukovitz, 271 Ill. App. 3d at 1039, 659 N.E.2d at 475.

"It is undisputed that [the designer] Imperial did no construction work on Paukovitz' 

home. It only supplied the shell materials and the plans which [the builder] Vignali then 

used to construct the residence. The parties do not cite, and we are unable to find, any 

reported cases in which a court held that the supplier of plans and shell materials was a 

builder-vendor for the purposes of the implied warranty of habitability. Moreover, in 

every case cited by Paukovitz to support his contention that Imperial was the buildervendor, the defendant had conducted some kind of construction work on the home in 

question. Inasmuch as Imperial did not contribute to the actual construction of Paukovitz' 

home, we find that it was not a builder-vendor which could be held liable for the breach 

of the implied warranty of habitability." Paukovitz, 271 Ill. App. 3d at 1039, 649 N.E.2d 

at 475. 

¶ 17 Other jurisdictions that have addressed this issue have also concluded that a design 

professional may not be sued under an implied warranty theory for providing professional 

services. Furthermore, the principle that an architect does not warrant or guarantee perfection in 

his or her plans and specifications is a long standing principle. More than a 100 years ago, in a 

payment dispute, a Michigan defendant argued that his building costs had been increased by 

flawed plans and specifications and that the architect's compensation should be reduced 

accordingly. Chapel v. Clark, 76 N.W. 62, 62 (Mich. 1898). The Michigan Supreme Court 

surveyed other jurisdictions and held that the law does not imply a warranty or guarantee of 

perfection in architectural work. Chapel, 76 N.W. at 62. An architect is expected to exercise only 
1-12-3452

- 10 -

ordinary skill and care Chapel, 76 N.W. at 62. Performing to that standard sometimes results in 

defects or unsafe conditions. Chapel, 76 N.W. at 62.

¶ 18 In a contemporary Wyoming case, an architectural firm sued an engineering firm, arguing 

that the engineer impliedly agreed to provide a " 'useful' " and "' workable' " heating, ventilation, 

and air conditioning system for a new building in Cheyenne. Kemper Architects, P.C. v. McFall, 

Konkel & Kimball Consulting Engineers, Inc., 843 P.2d 1178, 1186 (Wyo. 1992). The court 

disagreed, stating simply that the "implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is 

applicable to contracts for the sale of goods, not for professional services." Kemper Architects,

843 P.2d at 1186. "An engineer, or any other so-called professional, does not 'warrant' his service 

or the tangible evidence of his skill to be 'merchantable' or 'fit for an intended use.' These are 

terms uniquely applicable to goods. Rather, *** the engineer or architect 'warrants' that he will or 

has exercised his skill according to a certain standard of care, that he acted reasonably and 

without neglect." Kemper Architects, 843 P.2d at 1186.

¶ 19 Similarly, in Minnesota, where an addition to a municipal building allowed water to seep 

into the basement, the city filed various claims against the architect. City of Mounds View v. 

Walijarvi, 263 N.W.2d 420 (Minn. 1978). The Minnesota supreme court disposed of the claims 

that relied on implied warranty/strict liability (City of Mounds View, 263 N.W.2d at 423), and 

instead followed the traditional rule that imposes liability on architects and other professional 

service providers only where professional negligence is proved. City of Mounds View, 263 

N.W.2d at 425. Contrary to the current appellant's argument, the court distinguished the 

architect's role from that of the home's builder or contractor: 

" 'In an examination of the merits of the controversy between these parties, we must 

bear in mind that the (architect) was not a contractor who had entered into an agreement 
1-12-3452

- 11 -

to construct a house for the (owner), but was merely an agent of the (owner) to assist him 

in building one. The responsibility resting on an architect is essentially the same as that 

which rests upon the lawyer to his client, or upon the physician to his patient ***. The 

undertaking of an architect implies that he possesses skill and ability, including taste, 

sufficient to enable him to perform the required services at least ordinarily and 

reasonably well; and that he will exercise and apply in the given case his skill and ability, 

his judgment and taste, reasonably and without neglect. But the undertaking does not 

imply or warrant a satisfactory result." City of Mounds View, 263 N.W.2d at 423 (quoting 

Coombs v. Beede, 36 A. 104, 104-05 (Me. 1896)). 

¶ 20 The Minnesota Supreme Court characterized the efforts of architects and engineers as 

"inexact sciences:"

"The reasoning underlying the general rule as it applies both to architects and other 

vendors of professional services is relatively straightforward. Architects, doctors, 

engineers, attorneys, and others deal in somewhat inexact sciences and are continually 

called upon to exercise their skilled judgment in order to anticipate and provide for 

random factors which are incapable of precise measurement. The indeterminable nature 

of these factors makes it impossible for professional service people to gauge them with 

complete accuracy in every instance. Thus, doctors cannot promise that every operation 

will be successful; a lawyer can never be certain that a contract he drafts is without latent 

ambiguity; and an architect cannot be certain that a structural design will interact with 

natural forces as anticipated. Because of the inescapable possibility of error which 

inheres in these services, the law has traditionally required, not perfect results, but rather 

the exercise of that skill and judgment which can be reasonably expected from similarly 
1-12-3452

- 12 -

situated professionals. ***

***

We have reexamined our case law on the subject of professional services and are not 

persuaded that the time has yet arrived for the abrogation of the traditional rule. Adoption 

of the city's implied warranty theory would in effect impose strict liability on architects 

for latent defects in the structures they design. That is, once a court or jury has made the 

threshold finding that a structure was somehow unfit for its intended purpose, liability 

would be imposed on the responsible architect in spite of his diligent application of stateof-the-art design techniques. If every facet of structural design consisted of little more 

than the mechanical application of immutable physical principles, we could accept the 

rule of strict liability which the city proposes. But even in the present state of relative 

technological enlightenment, the keenest engineering minds can err in their most 

searching assessment of the natural factors which determine whether structural 

components will adequately serve their intended purpose. Until the random element is 

eliminated in the application of architectural sciences, we think it fairer than the 

purchaser of the architect's services bear the risk of such unforeseeable difficulties." City 

of Mounds View, 263 N.W.2d at 424. 

¶ 21 Similar reasoning was applied in Board of Trustees of Union College v. Kennerly, 

Slomanson & Smith, 400 A.2d 850 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1979), in which a New Jersey 

college sued an architectural and engineering firm, claiming that the engineer impliedly 

warranted that a design for a lighting system for a parking lot would be reasonably fit for its 

intended use. The court rejected this argument, noting that a majority of jurisdictions have 

refused to extend the implied warranty theory to the performance of architectural and 
1-12-3452

- 13 -

engineering services. Board of Trustees of Union College, 400 A.D. at 852. See also 5 Phillip L. 

Bruner & Patrick J. O’Connor, Jr., Bruner & O’Connor on Construction Law § 17:24 (2002)

(summarizing that while implied warranties are customary in the sale of products, most 

jurisdictions have rejected the application of implied warranties to the rendering of professional 

services such as architecture and engineering); Sam A. Mackie, Architect’s Negligence, 33 Am. 

Jur. Proof of Facts 3d 57, § 7 at 74-75 (2015) (noting that some jurisdictions have held that the 

technical drawings, services, and information which are supplied by an architect do not 

constitute a product, and that what the architect actually provides is a service); Samuelson v. 

Chutich, 529 P.2d 631, 633 (Colo. 1974) ("we regard it as the better part of wisdom not to extend 

as a matter of law implied warranties from [sales of products to service contracts]"); JohnsonVoiland-Archuleta, Inc. v. Roark Associates, 572 P.2d 1220 (Colo. App. 1977) (engineers 

prepare drawings and specifications for construction projects, which is a professional service, 

they do not sell goods and are not subject to the implied warranty of fitness for intended use); 

Audlane Lumber & Builders Supply, Inc. v. D.E. Britt Associates, Inc., 168 So. 2d 333, 335 (Fla. 

Dist. Ct. App. 1964) (an engineer or architect preparing designs and specifications to be used in 

construction must act reasonably and without neglect; but he does not warrant his professional 

service or the tangible evidence of his skill to be merchantable or fit for an intended use; those 

are terms that are "uniquely applicable to goods"). Cf. Beachwalk Villas Condominum Ass'n v. 

Martin, 406 S.E.2d 372 (S.C. 1991) (holding that an architect could be held liable to 

condominium buyers for negligence and breach of implied warranty of habitability despite their 

lack of contractual privity). 

¶ 22 Thus, two principles become clear from the case law. First, the implied warranty of 

habitability of construction is traditionally applied to those who engage in construction. Second,
1-12-3452

- 14 -

architects do not construct structures, they perform design services pursuant to contracts which 

set out their obligations and courts have consistently declined to heighten their express 

contractual obligations by implying a warranty of habitability of construction.

¶ 23 Nonetheless, the condominium association argues for a different result and contends it 

was error for the trial court to dismiss the amended claim against the architect. A motion to 

dismiss pursuant to section 2-615 of the Code of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-615 (West 

2012)), challenges the legal sufficiency of a complaint based on defects apparent on its face. 

Marshall v. Burger King Corp., 222 Ill. 2d 422, 429, 856 N.E.2d 1048, 1053 (2006). On review, 

we consider "whether the allegations of the complaint, when construed in the light most 

favorable to the plaintiff, are sufficient to establish a cause of action upon which relief may be 

granted." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Karas v. Strevell, 227 Ill. 2d 440, 451, 884 N.E.2d 

122, 129 (2008). When we review the sufficiency of a complaint, we consider the issue de novo. 

Karas, 227 Ill. 2d at 451, 884 N.E.2d 122. We first accept as true all well-pled facts in the 

complaint and any uncontradicted affidavits and we draw all reasonable inferences from those 

facts, and then determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. 

1324 W. Pratt Condominium Ass'n v. Platt Construction Group, Inc., 2012 IL App (1st) 111474, 

¶ 21, 974 N.E.2d 279 (Pratt II). A cause of action should not be dismissed pursuant to section 2-

615 unless it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proven that would entitle the plaintiff 

to recover. Marshall, 222 Ill. 2d at 429, 856 N.E.2d at 429. Although a complaint does not need 

to contain evidence, it cannot rely on mere conclusions and it must contain facts sufficient to 

bring a claim within a legally recognized cause of action. Redelmann v. Claire-Sprayway, Inc.,

375 Ill. App. 3d 912, 921, 874 N.E.2d 230, 239 (2007). 
1-12-3452

- 15 -

¶ 24 The condominium association bases its argument primarily on Minton, 116 Ill. App. 3d 

852, 452 N.E.2d 835, in which an Illinois court extended the implied warranty of habitability to a 

painting subcontractor. The condominium association contends that the work of the general 

contractors (builders) and subcontractors whom Illinois has already subjected to the implied 

warranty is similar to the work of architects. The condominium association emphasizes that fault 

in the efforts of either a contractor or an architect may create latent defects in a completed 

building and that the public policy underlying the implied warranty of habitability of 

construction work is to protect new homeowners from latent defects by holding the responsible 

party liable. The condominium association also contends that Paukovitz is no longer good law, in 

light of cases such as Tassan, Von Holdt, and Minton, which impose the implied warranty on 

parties other than builder-sellers, and that there is no justification for immunizing architects from 

the reach of Minton.

¶ 25 This reasoning, however, oversimplifies Minton, misstates the status of Paukovitz, and 

glosses over the distinctions between the tasks that are undertaken by architects and contractors.

¶ 26 In Minton, the implied warranty of habitability was extended to a painting subcontractor 

which caused the alleged latent defect of peeling paint and where the buyers had no recourse 

against the insolvent builder-seller. Minton, 116 Ill. App. 3d 852, 452 N.E.2d 835. Paint on the 

windows and eaves had begun to peel within 90 days of the buyer taking possession. Minton, 116 

Ill. App. 3d at 853, 452 N.E.2d at 836. Prior to the builder-seller's dissolution, the buyers asked 

the builder-seller to correct the problem, but no repairs were attempted. Minton, 116 Ill. App. 3d 

at 854, 452 N.E.2d at 837. Because the builder-seller was insolvent, the buyers filed a breach of 

implied warranty claim against the painting subcontractor, which was a firm that the builderseller had chosen and supervised. Minton, 116 Ill. App. 3d at 853-54, 452 N.E.2d at 835-36. The 
1-12-3452

- 16 -

trial court dismissed the claim, but the appellate court found that the implied warranty of 

habitability should be extended to the subcontractor where the buyers had suffered a loss due to 

the latent defect in their new home and where the buyers had no recourse against the builderseller. Minton, 116 Ill. App. 3d at 855, 452 N.E.2d at 837. The condominium association argues 

that this case supports imposing an implied warranty of habitability claim against Hirsch. 

¶ 27 In our opinion, however, Minton is properly limited to subcontractors such as the painting 

firm in Minton that have helped with the physical construction or the construction-sale of the 

property. The court emphasized that the implied warranty of habitability of construction arises 

between the builder-seller and the buyer because of their "unusual dependent relationship." 

Minton, 116 Ill. App. 3d at 854, 452 N.E.2d at 836. Property buyers such as the plaintiffs in 

Minton "depend upon [the builder-seller's] ability to construct and sell a home of sound structure 

and his ability to hire subcontractors capable of building a home of sound structure." Minton, 116 

Ill. App. 3d at 854, 452 N.E.2d at 837. The role that the Hirsch architectural firm had in erecting 

the subject condominiums did not create a dependent relationship with the buyers like the one 

that existed in Minton. The fact that the builders of the subject condominium complex are now 

alleged to be insolvent does not justify expanding Minton's holding to an entirely different 

category of defendant. There is no allegation that this architect took part in the construction or 

the construction-sale of real property and therefore, we find that this architect should not be 

subject to the implied warranty of habitability of construction. Furthermore, Paukovitz is still 

good law. That case indicates the implied warranty at issue concerns the quality of construction 

work and shifts the expense of repairing latent defects from the unsophisticated home buyer to 

those who, in some way, "contribute to the actual construction of [the] home." Paukovitz, 271 Ill. 
1-12-3452

- 17 -

App. 3d at 1039, 649 N.E.2d at 475. Every case cited by the condominium association maintains 

that core principle.

¶ 28 The condominium association is mistaken when it contends architects and builders are 

similar because their work results in a tangible structure and that both architects and builders are 

already subject to the implied obligation to perform their tasks in a "workmanlike" manner.

¶ 29 Architects are professionals who design and create plans and specifications for the 

construction of buildings or structures. Sam A. Mackie, Architect’s Negligence, 33 Am. Jur. 

Proof of Facts 3d 57, § 5 (1995) (generally defining the work of an architect). Carvalho v. Toll 

Brothers & Developers, 651 A.2d 492 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1995) (referring to architects 

and engineers who prepare plans and specification for construction as "professionals"). In 

contrast, home builders are responsible for the physical implementation of the architect's plan. 

They are project managers and possibly tradesmen who are responsible for the overall 

coordination of a construction project and for the provision of all material, labor and equipment 

necessary for the construction of a structure. Description of "General Contractor," Wikipedia, 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_contractor (last visited June 16, 2015). See also Calloway 

v. Bovis Lend Lease, Inc., 2013 IL App (1st) 112746, ¶ 3, 995 N.E.2d 381 ("In its capacity as 

construction manager, Bovis was responsible for coordinating day-to-day activities on the 

project, including the work of all contractors and subcontractors."). Therefore, it is not the 

architect–it is the builder–who physically constructs property.

¶ 30 Also, architects are not workmen and they are not obligated to perform their professional 

services in a "workmanlike manner." A workman is a person "who labors" or is "employed in 

manual labor, skilled or unskilled." Black's Law Dictionary 1780 (4th ed. 1957). The term 

"workmen" does not include professional persons. In re Paradise Catering Corp., 36 F. Supp. 
1-12-3452

- 18 -

974, 975 (S.D.N.Y. 1941) (the common and popular meaning of "workmen" does not include 

professionals); Carvalho, 651 A.2d 492 (referring to an architect-engineer as a "professional"

and to a trench laborer as a "workman"). To perform in a "good and workmanlike" manner is to 

perform "quality craftsmanship" or to construct or perform in a skillful way or method. Black's 

Law Dictionary 761 (9th ed. 2009). Thus, while builders, contractors, and craftsmen in the 

construction trades should be held to the "workmanlike" standard, architects should not. We 

maintain this conclusion despite the condominium association's citation to a case stating that an 

architectural firm hired to design a junior high school in Schaumburg, Illinois, was obligated "to 

perform its work in a reasonably workmanlike manner." Board of Education of Community 

Consolidated School District No. 54 v. Del Bianco & Associates, Inc., 57 Ill. App. 3d 302, 308, 

372 N.E.2d 953, 958 (1978). The court was generally stating the extent of the architect's duties to 

its client. The architect's contract with the school board, which was a form contract distributed by 

The American Institute of Architects, did not include the term "workmanlike." Del Bianco, 57 

Ill. App. 3d at 307-08, 372 N.E.2d at 957. Instead, it was the court that used this term to describe 

an implied standard of care for the architect's efforts as the court evaluated whether the architect 

had in fact breached its contract with the school board. Del Bianco, 57 Ill. App. 3d at 308, 372 

N.E.2d at 957. The court's casual use or misuse of the term is not a reason to conclude that an 

entity which designed but did not construct the condominiums at issue should be subject to the 

implied warranty of habitability of construction. We also adhere to this conclusion despite the 

condominium association's citation to the Mechanics Lien Act, 770 ILCS 60/1 (West 2012), and 

Christopher B. Burke Engineering, Ltd. v. Heritage Bank of Central Illinois, 2015 IL 118955, ---

N.E.3d ---. These sources indicate that the services of an architectural or engineering company 

are lienable but they do not suggest, in any way, that an architect engages in the physical 
1-12-3452

- 19 -

construction of property and should be subject to the implied warranty of habitability of 

construction. 

¶ 31 Architects are not like the builders, the builder-sellers, or the developer-seller to whom 

the implied warranty of habitability of construction has been applied and it would be a 

considerable extension of the law for this court to recognize the claim at issue on appeal. Having 

reviewed the facts of this case and the legal principles that govern it, we are not persuaded that 

the architectural firm which took no part in constructing or selling the condominium complex in 

Wheeling should be subject to the implied warranty of habitability of construction. We decline to 

recognize the condominium association's "Minton claim" against the Hirsch architectural firm. 

We conclude that the condominium association did not factually state a viable cause of action 

against Hirsch in count III of its complaint and we affirm the trial court's ruling in Hirsch's favor.

¶ 32 We next address the trial court's dismissal of implied warranty of habitability claims that 

were filed against the other appellees: the developer (count II), the original and successor general 

contractors, the masonry subcontractor, and the carpentry subcontractor (count III). The court 

granted the dismissal for several reasons, including that the record demonstrated that each 

purchase agreement executed for the condominium units conspicuously disclaimed implied 

warranties on behalf of the developer-seller and its agents. The condominium association argues 

the ruling was in error because the disclaimer language in the purchase agreement was not called

to the buyers' attention or worded properly and the seller did not show the court each and every 

purchase agreement.

¶ 33 A section 2-619 motion to dismiss admits the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's claim but 

asserts certain defects or defenses outside the pleading that defeat the claim. Patrick 

Engineering, Inc. v. City of Naperville, 2012 IL 113148, ¶ 31, 976 N.E.2d 318. Specifically, 
1-12-3452

- 20 -

section 2-619(a)(9) permits involuntary dismissal where the claim is barred by "other affirmative 

matter." 735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2012). We review a dismissal pursuant to section 2-619 

de novo. Patrick Engineering, 2012 IL 113148, ¶ 31, 976 N.E.2d 318.

¶ 34 Our supreme court has indicated that even though the implied warranty of habitability 

came into being as a matter of public policy, buyers may waive that protection. Petersen, 76 Ill. 

2d at 43, 389 N.E.2d at 1159. However, a builder-seller's attempt to disclaim the implied 

warranty will be strictly construed against that party. Petersen, 76 Ill. 2d at 43, 389 N.E.2d at 

1159. 

¶ 35 A waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known right and cannot occur through 

mistake or misapprehension of fact. Breckenridge v. Cambridge Homes, Inc., 246 Ill. App. 3d 

810, 817, 616 N.E.2d 615, 619 (1993). An effective waiver in this context is one that is a 

conspicuous part of the parties' agreement, refers to the warranty of habitability by name, and 

discloses the consequences of its inclusion. Petersen, 76 Ill. 2d at 43, 389 N.E.2d at 1159 

(adopting the warranty of habitability of construction work and stating in dicta that the warranty 

could be disclaimed if certain criteria were met); Breckenridge, 246 Ill. App. 3d at 817, 616 

N.E.2d at 619 (applying the three criteria suggested by Petersen); Board of Managers of the 

Village Centre Condominium Ass'n v. Wilmette Partners, 198 Ill. 2d 132, 138, 760 N.E.2d 976, 

980 (2001) (adding the element that an effective waiver is one that expressly disclaims the 

warranty of habitability and that it is ineffective to substitute terms from the Uniform 

Commercial Code such as "fitness for a particular purpose"). Our supreme court has declined to 

adopt or recommend a model disclaimer and indicated that each case is fact specific. Village 

Centre Condominium Ass'n, 198 Ill. 2d at 141, 760 N.E.2d at 981.
1-12-3452

- 21 -

¶ 36 A court may find that the language of a contract is so clear and so conspicuous that no 

other reasonable conclusion could be reached but that the buyer both read and understood the 

language and therefore as a matter of law effectively waived the implied warranty. Country 

Squire Homeowners Ass'n v. Crest Hill Development Corp., 150 Ill. App. 3d 30, 33, 501 N.E.2d 

794, 796 (1986). A buyer who has had an opportunity to read a contract before signing it, but 

signs it before reading it, cannot later plead a lack of understanding. Breckenridge, 246 Ill. App. 

3d at 819, 616 N.E.2d at 621. The failure to read a document before signing it is not an excuse

for avoiding its enforcement. Breckenridge, 246 Ill. App. 3d at 819, 616 N.E.2d at 620.

¶ 37 The Condominium Purchase Agreement at issue here consists of 10 pages of typewritten 

text and 6 pages of attached exhibits. There are 28 paragraphs in the agreement. The warranty 

language appears in paragraph 8, as follows:

"8. Warranties. At Closing, Seller shall deliver to Purchaser, and Purchaser shall 

acknowledge receipt of, a Certificate of Warranty with respect to the Purchased Unit in 

the form of Exhibit C attached hereto and made a part hereof. EXCEPT AS 

EXPRESSLY PROVIDED HEREIN, SELLER HEREBY EXCLUDES ANY AND ALL 

WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, 

ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, HABITABILITY, OR 

FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE), WARRANTIES FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS UNDER MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT WITH RESPECT TO 

THE PURCHASED UNIT AND COMMON ELEMENTS. BY PURCHASER'S 

EXECUTION OF THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT, PURCHASER 

ACKNOWLEDGES THAT IT HAS READ AND UNDERSTOOD THE 

CERTIFICATES [sic] OF WARRANTY ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT [C] HERETO 
1-12-3452

- 22 -

AND THAT THERE ARE NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND MADE HEREIN WITH 

RESPECT TO DEFECTS IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE PURCHASED UNIT AND 

COMMON ELEMENTS EXCEPT FOR WARRANTIES MADE IN SAID 

CERTIFICATES OF WARRANTY. ANY LIABILTIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF 

SELLER (AND ITS OWNERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND OTHER 

REPRESENTATIVES) UNDER OR WITH RESPECT TO WARRANTIES 

HEREUNDER OF THE TRANSACTION HEREIN CONTEMPLATED, SHALL NOT 

EXCEED THE COST OF REPLACEMENT OF THE SUBJECT ITEM, AND SHALL 

IN NO EVENT GIVE RISE TO ANY LIABLITY OR OBLIGATION FOR ANY 

INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR SIMILAR DAMAGES, PURCHASER 

ACKNOWLEDGES THAT HE IS (THEY ARE) BUYING THE PURCHASED UNIT, 

RIGHTS APPURTENANT THERETO IN OTHER PROPERTY, AND PERSONAL 

PROPERTY TO BE CONVEYED, ALL WITHOUT WARRANTY OR 

REPRESENTATION OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, BY SELLER OR 

ANY OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, AGENT, BROKER, OR OTHER REPRESENTATIVE 

OF SELLER, OTHER THAN THAT SET FORTH ABOVE. Purchaser waives all rights 

against Seller, under any legal theory and whenever arising, based in whole or part on 

conditions not warranted, or for damages hereby excluded. This paragraph may not be 

modified by any method (including, without limitation, oral representation of course of 

conduct [(sic)] other than a written instrument executed on behalf of Seller by its officers 

or attorneys, and Purchaser understands that no other party is or will be authorized so the 

[(sic)] execute such an instrument."
1-12-3452

- 23 -

¶ 38 The attached Certificate of Limited Warranty states that a limited warranty will cover all 

latent defects attributable to faulty workmanship or defective material that were not apparent 

during the seller's inspection but reported in writing within one year of substantial completion of 

the seller's work. It then states, in a separate paragraph: "THIS LIMITED WARRANTY IS IN 

LIEU OF ALL OTHER WARRANTIES OF SELLER, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED (INCLUDING 

WITHOUT LIMITATION ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, 

HABITABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE), AND INURES ONLY TO 

THE BENEFIT OF THE PURCHASER WHO HAS SIGNED AND APPROVED THIS 

LIMITED WARRANTY." This sentence was made conspicuous by its placement on the first 

page of the certificate of limited warranty and by being one of only three provisions in allcapitalized font. The entire certificate is slightly more than two pages in length. The third page 

contains only the execution date, the buyer's signature, and the following statement: "The 

undersigned Purchaser approves and accepts the above Limited Warranty, including the terms, 

conditions and exclusions thereto, and agrees that this Certificate of Limited Warranty is in lieu 

of all other warranties of Seller, including without limitation those implied at law, with regard to 

the Purchased Unit."

¶ 39 An affidavit executed by Vivian J. Smith indicates she holds a management position with 

Park Point at Wheeling, LLC, which was the developer-seller of the condominium units, and that 

she is knowledgeable about the 96 condominium sales that occurred between 2001 and 2004. 

Ms. Smith swore that each buyer executed the Condominium Purchase Agreement and 

Certificate of Limited Warranty and that the developer-seller did not allow any buyer to modify 

the warranty disclaimer terms. 
1-12-3452

- 24 -

¶ 40 Reviewing the quoted provision within the context of the entire purchase agreement leads 

to the conclusion that the disclaimer was conspicuous because it was all capitalized and there 

was only one other section in the contract that was similarly capitalized (the part of paragraph 4 

in which the seller disclaimed any express or implied warranties for personal property in the 

unit). The all-capitalized text within the context of the concise contract catches the reader's eye. 

The all-capitalized provision within the contract was sufficient as a matter of law to bring the 

waiver to the buyer's attention. Furthermore, the provision refers to the warranty of habitability 

by name, fully discloses the consequences of its inclusion in the contract and it was, in fact, a 

part of the agreement executed by the parties. Therefore, the provision meets the Petersen and 

Breckenridge criteria of an effective disclaimer. In addition, each buyer reviewed and executed 

the Certificate of Limited Warranty again confirming the seller's disclaimer of liability for latent 

defects. The Certificate of Limited Warranty would not have been enough on its own to disclaim 

the implied warranty of habitability, but it did strengthen some of the disclaimer terms in the 

main contract. 

¶ 41 The condominium board misapprehends the governing standards when it argues (1) it 

was the developer-seller's policy and practice not to specifically point out the disclaimer to 

buyers before they executed the contract and (2) that the affidavit of Robert Yedinak, who is a 

unit owner and the president of the condominium association, indicates, "At no time did anyone 

on behalf of seller inform me [of the disclaimer in the purchase agreement]." A seller is not 

required to specifically point out a disclaimer in a written contract. In Illinois, a disclaimer of the

warranty of habitability is effective if it is a conspicuous part of the contract, refers to the 

warranty by name, and uses plain language that fully discloses the consequences of its inclusion. 

Petersen, 76 Ill. 2d at 43, 389 N.E.2d at 1159; Breckenridge, 246 Ill. App. 3d at 821, 616 N.E.2d 
1-12-3452

- 25 -

at 622; Country Squire Homeowners Ass'n, 150 Ill. App. 3d at 32, 501 N.E.2d at 796.

Furthermore, a seller is not required to use a particular method of bringing a disclaimer to the 

attention of the buyer, such as having the buyer initial the provision. 

¶ 42 The condominium association misconstrues the significance of Colsant, in which the 

builder-seller argued in part that language in its express warranty also curtailed the scope of the 

implied warranty. Colsant v. Goldschmidt, 97 Ill. App. 3d 53, 55, 421 N.E.2d 1073, 1075 (1981). 

The builder-seller was relying on a sentence which stated, " 'Builder does not assume 

responsibility for any secondary or consequential damages caused by any defects.' " Colsant, 97 

Ill. App. 3d at 54, 421 N.E.2d at 1075. The court rejected the seller's arguments, because its 

disclaimer was a single sentence, in regular font, buried in the midst of 65 paragraphs, it did not 

explain the purported consequences of accepting the terms, it was worded broadly, and it did not 

refer to any particular warranty. Colsant, 97 Ill. App. 3d at 57, 421 N.E.2d at 1077. In other 

words, it failed because it did not meet any of the established criteria. We do not read Colsant to 

mean that a builder-seller is required to call the buyer's attention to its disclaimer language.

¶ 43 The condominium association next cites Chestnut Hills for the proposition that unless a 

buyer separately initials a disclaimer, the disclaimer is not enforceable as a matter of law. Board 

of Managers of Chestnut Hills Condominium Ass'n v. Pasquinelli, Inc., 354 Ill. App. 3d 749, 822 

N.E.2d 12 (2004). This, however, is a misinterpretation of the court's holding regarding a 

disclaimer that did not meet all of the established criteria, in that it failed to set out the 

consequences of waiving the implied warranty of habitability. Chestnut Hills, 354 Ill. App. 3d at

758, 822 N.E.2d at 19; Petersen, 76 Ill. 2d at 43, 389 N.E.2d at 1159 (requiring in part that a 

purported waiver of the implied warranty of habitability disclose the consequences of the 

waiver). The court pointed out this defect and also contrasted the circumstances with what had 
1-12-3452

- 26 -

occurred in another case, Breckenridge, 246 Ill. App. 3d 810, 616 N.E.2d 615, in which the 

buyers admitted they read their warranty disclaimer and understood what they were doing when 

they wrote their initials next to it. The court was not attempting to enhance the Petersen criteria.

¶ 44 Despite the appellant's argument, we find that that the seller of the condominiums at issue 

was not required to verbally call the warranty disclaimer to each buyer's attention or obtain each 

buyer's initials next to it. We also find that the disclaimer, set out above, does in fact meet the 

Petersen and Breckenridge criteria of an effective disclaimer, in part because it was brought to 

each buyer's attention by being conspicuous within the parties' contract. 

¶ 45 The condominium association also argues the trial court should not have allowed the 

appellees to prevail on their affirmative defense of waiver without requiring them to tender each 

and every executed purchase agreement and warranty certificate. The condominium association 

contends each contract is important because the buyers own undivided interests in the common 

elements, and, thus, even a single buyer could recover the costs of repairing material defects in 

all the common elements. Tassan, 88 Ill. App. 3d at 594-95, 410 N.E.2d at 913. The record, 

however, includes the affidavit of Ms. Smith, who swore that the form contract attached to the 

condominium association's complaint was signed by each purchaser. Ms. Smith made a similar 

statement about the warranty certificate exemplar that was tendered with the complaint. She also 

specified that no revisions were permitted by any party to the warranty provision. The 

condominium association did not counter Ms. Smith's affidavit with any contrary facts. When a 

supporting affidavit has not been refuted by a counter-affidavit or other appropriate means, the 

facts in that supporting affidavit are deemed admitted. Zedella v. Gibson, 165 Ill. 2d 181, 185, 

650 N.E.2d 1000, 1002 (1995). Therefore, the record shows that the waiver applies equally to the 

unit owners and precludes the possibility that there is a different version of the documents which 
1-12-3452

- 27 -

did not include the waiver. Moreover, we granted the condominium association's motion to cite 

Fattah as additional authority in support of its appeal, but that decision does not change our 

analysis. Fattah v. Bim, 2015 IL App (1st) 140171, 31 N.E.3d 922 (pet. For leave to appeal 

allowed, No. 119365 (Sept. 30, 2015)). In Fattah, we held that a subsequent buyer could 

maintain a claim against a developer for breach of the implied warranty, even though the original 

buyer had waived the claim, because the subsequent buyer was unaware of the waiver and had 

not knowingly assented to the same terms. Fattah, 2015 IL App (1st) 140171, 31 N.E.3d 922. 

The condominium association contends this is an indication the defendants did not prevail on 

their affirmative defense. We disagree, as there is no subsequent buyer. The plaintiff is an 

association of all the current owners of the subject condominium units, and if this group included 

a subsequent buyer who did not knowingly assent to the disclaimer at issue, then the association 

should have made this fact and argument known during the trial court proceedings. Ms. Smith's 

affidavit stands unopposed. Zedellan, 165 Ill. 2d at 185, 650 N.E.2d at 1002.

¶ 46 Accordingly, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the developer-seller, PPW, from 

these proceedings.

¶ 47 The condominium board next argues that for public policy reasons, Pratt II dictates that 

the disclaimer should be applied only to the developer-seller that executed it and should not be 

extended to other parties such as the project's general contractor or subcontractors. Pratt II, 2012 

IL App (1st) 111474, 974 N.E.2d 279. This argument is unpersuasive. The decision the 

condominium board relies on, Pratt II, was based on contract language which clearly limited the 

disclaimer to the seller. The court did not, as the condominium association claims, reach that 

conclusion in order to protect the buyers and implement the public policy underlying the implied 

warranty of habitability of construction. In fact, the court initially noted that " 'a knowing 
1-12-3452

- 28 -

disclaimer of the implied warranty of habitability is not against the public policy of this state.' "

(Emphasis added.) Pratt II, 2012 IL App (1st) 111474, ¶ 28, 974 N.E.2d 279 (quoting Petersen, 

76 Ill. 2d at 43, 389 N.E.2d at 1159). The court then followed the " 'basic rules of contract 

interpretation,' " by applying the terms of the parties' "clear and unambiguous" agreement. Pratt 

II, 2012 IL App (1st) 111474, ¶ 31, 974 N.E.2d 279 (quoting Thompson v. Gordon, 241 Ill. 2d 

428, 441, 948 N.E.2d 39, 47 (2011)). The court found that the disclaimer there applied to the 

seller and not the contractors and subcontractors (Pratt II, 2012 IL App (1st) 111474, ¶ 32, 974 

N.E.2d 279), because the agreement said: " 'THE SELLER HEREBY DISCLAIMS AND THE 

PURCHASER HEREBY WAIVES THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF HABITABILITY 

DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 10(B) ABOVE' " (emphases omitted) (Pratt II, 2012 IL App 

(1st) 111474, ¶ 30, 974 N.E.2d 279).

¶ 48 Thus, the question becomes whether the wording of the purchase agreement for the 

condominium units at Park Point at Wheeling encompassed all the defendants when it disclaimed 

the implied warranty on behalf of the "SELLER (AND ITS OWNERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, 

AND OTHER REPRESENTATIVES)." The contract defines seller as "Park Point at Wheeling, 

L.L.C.," but does not define officers, agents or other representatives. The trial court concluded 

that Smith, the general contractor, was an agent or representative of the developer-seller, based 

on the condominium association's allegations in paragraphs 5 and 17 of count III (the "Minton

claim") that Smith "provided development services" and "held itself out to prospective buyers as 

a knowledgeable developer and contractor regarding the sale of Condominium."

¶ 49 However, these are not allegations that Smith was an agent or representative of the 

developer-seller. An agency is a fiduciary relationship in which the principal has the right to 

control the agent's conduct and the agent has the power to act on the principal's behalf. Amcore 
1-12-3452

- 29 -

Bank, N.A. v. Hahnaman-Albrecht, Inc., 326 Ill. App. 3d 126, 134, 759 N.E.2d 174, 181 (2001). 

Generally speaking, the terms "agent" and "representative" may be used interchangeably. The 

commonly understood meaning of "agent" is a person "who is authorized to act for or in the 

place of another; a representative." Black's Law Dictionary 72 (9th ed. 2009). A "representative" 

is a person "who stands for or acts on behalf of another." Black's Law Dictionary 1416 (9th ed. 

2009). See also Sunset Milling & Grain Co. v. Anderson, 249 P.2d 24, 27 (1952) (stating that the 

appellant's "attempted distinction [between the terms representative and agent] is without merit 

because, for all general purposes, the designations are synonymous" and "may be used 

interchangeably"); Texas Power & Light Co. v. Adamson, 203 S.W.2d 275, 276 (Tex. Civ. App.

1947) (indicating that the terms agency and representative are interchangeable and indicate "the 

use of at least some discretionary authority; the taking the place of the principal and acting in the 

furtherance of his business"). The allegations that Smith "provided development services" and 

"held itself out as a knowledgeable developer and contractor" are not allegations that Smith was 

authorized to act for or on behalf of the developer-seller PPW. Therefore, Smith does not come 

within the terms of the disclaimer and is not entitled to its protection. Accordingly, the trial 

court's dismissal of count III as to Smith on the basis of the warranty disclaimer was in error and 

is vacated. We also find that it was an abuse of discretion to deny the motion to reconsider the 

ruling as to Smith, and we reverse that ruling. General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Stoval, 374 

Ill. App. 3d 1064, 1078, 872 N.E.2d 91, 103 (2007) (indicating the purpose of a motion to 

reconsider is to bring the court's attention to a change in the law, ask the court to revaluate its 

application of existing law, or present newly discovered evidence that was not available when 

the original hearing occurred; and that a trial court's ruling on a motion to reconsider will not be 

overturned absent an abuse of discretion).
1-12-3452

- 30 -

¶ 50 Also, the masonry and carpentry subcontractors, Midwest and G.W. Thiel, are like the 

general contractor, Smith, and do not come within the scope of the written warranty disclaimer. 

Because Midwest and G.W. Theil are not agents or representatives of the developer-seller, PPW, 

the trial court's dismissal of count III as to these subcontractors was in error and is vacated. 

¶ 51 In summary: the dismissal of count II as to developer PPW is affirmed; the dismissal of 

count III as to architect Hirsch is affirmed; the dismissal of count III and the denial of the motion 

to reconsider the order as to general contractors Smith are reversed; and the dismissal of count III 

as to subcontractors Midwest and G.W. Thiel is reversed. This cause is remanded for further 

proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶ 52 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings.