Opinion ID: 3134249
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The commencement of this action.

Text: We first consider plaintiffs' contention that they were excused from giving direct notice of the breach of warranty because Suzuki had actual knowledge of the Samurai's alleged safety risks. It is uncontroverted that Suzuki was aware of the safety concerns regarding the Samurai. Suzuki knew of the unfavorable report about the Samurai issued by Consumers Union, as evidenced by its attempts to counter that report with its own publicity. Moreover, Suzuki entered settlement agreements with several states following attorney general investigations of the Samurai's safety risks. However, Suzuki's generalized knowledge about the safety concerns of third parties is insufficient to fulfill plaintiffs' UCC notice requirement. While it is unnecessary to list specific claims of breach of warranty in giving notice under section 2--607 (810 ILCS Ann. 5/2--607, Uniform Commercial Code Comment 4 (Smith- Hurd 1993); 13 Pa. Cons. Stat. §2607, Uniform Commercial Code Comment 4 (1984)), it is essential that the seller be notified that this particular transaction is troublesome and must be watched. See, e.g., Malawy, 150 Ill. App. 3d 549. As Judge Learned Hand stated regarding section 2--607's predecessor: The notice `of the breach' required is not of the facts, which the seller presumably knows quite as well as, if not better than, the buyer, but of BUYER'S CLAIM that they constitute a breach. (Emphasis added.) American Manufacturing Co. v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp., 7 F.2d 565, 566 (2d Cir. 1925). Thus, even if a manufacturer is aware of problems with a particular product line, the notice requirement of section 2--607 is satisfied only where the manufacturer is somehow apprised of the trouble with the particular product purchased by a particular buyer. See Malawy, 150 Ill. App. 3d 549 (actual knowledge satisfied notice requirement where seller hospital removed defective medical device from plaintiff); Crest Container Corp. v. R.H. Bishop Co., 111 Ill. App. 3d 1068 (1982) (actual knowledge satisfied notice requirement where seller's employee visited plaintiff to get to the bottom of why the product was malfunctioning); Overland Bond & Investment Corp. v. Howard, 9 Ill. App. 3d 348 (1972) (actual knowledge satisfied notice requirement where the car was towed to the seller's auto dealership and seller's employees were told that the car needed major repairs). Plaintiffs' complaint alleged that Suzuki received notice of the Samurai's safety problems through information received from newspapers, magazines, and various third parties, all of which was generalized information concerning the Samurai product line. The complaint does not allege that Suzuki had actual knowledge of the alleged breach of the particular products purchased by the named plaintiffs in this lawsuit. Thus, plaintiff's allegation of actual knowledge was insufficient to allege notice. We next address plaintiffs' contention that Suzuki was deemed to be notified of the breach of warranty upon the filing of plaintiffs' complaint. Initially, we note that, in determining whether notice of breach of warranty is adequate under the UCC, courts divide plaintiffs into three categories: (1) merchant buyers (see Board of Education v. A, C, & S, Inc., 131 Ill. 2d 428 (1989)); (2) consumer buyers who did not suffer personal injuries (see Perona, 276 Ill. App. 3d 609); and (3) consumer buyers who did suffer personal injuries (see Goldstein v. G.D. Searle & Co., 62