Court Opinion

ID: 9714916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:49:01.157155+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:29.670335
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE ALLOY, specially concurring: I concur in the disposition of this cause only for the reason that the appellant concedes that Workman Plumbing complied with the contract in this case and, also, for the reason that no mention of implied warranty was made at the trial and to raise it on appeal would be presenting a new “theory” for the first time on the appellate level. I do not, however, agree with the analysis in the case with respect to the issue of “implied warranty” as noted in the majority opinion. I do not believe that anything contained in the opinion should be controlling as it may relate to implied warranty of workmanship, as defined in Springdale Cemetery Association v. Smith (1803), 32 Ill. 252, 259, where the court stated: 6 ° a mechanic or other workman, undertaking to construct a piece of work, impliedly warrants that it shall be so constructed that it will be reasonably sufficient for the purposes for which it is intended * e It is one of the plainest principles of the law, that there is an implied warranty or undertaking in all cases, that the person so acting is reasonably skillful in his profession, trade or calling. And that he will perform his engagements in his calling with that degree of skill. The law implies in all contracts, in the absence of an express agreement to the contrary, that materials agreed to be furnished shall be suitable for the purpose, and that labor shall be performed with reasonable skill.”