Court Opinion

ID: 9740245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:30:49.400788+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:17.099004
License: Public Domain

Mr. JUSTICE GREEN, specially concurring: I concur in the decision of the majority to affirm. I agree that the attempted disclaimers of the implied warranty of merchantability by defendant Northtown Ford were ineffective. As stated by the majority, the attempted waiver on the front page was not sufficiently conspicuous and that on the back page followed a misleading heading which indicated that the provisions following it all concerned warranties of the manufacturer and not the seller. No other explanation for affirmance is necessary, and I deem it unwise and am unwilling to attempt to do so. The remedies of rejection and revocation of acceptance are provided for in sections 2 — 601 and 2 — 608 of the Uniform Commercial Code. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 26, pars. 2 — 601, 2 — 608.) It has been said that with these provisions the drafters of the Code “attempted to bring some order out of the chaotic body of law which had previously passed under the title ‘recission’. ” (J. White & R. Summers, Uniform Commercial Code, ch. 8, §8 — 1, at 246 (1972).) To come under the purview of either section, goods sold must be of such quality as to fail to conform to the contract of sale. The majority states that even if the warranty of merchantability had been waived here, section 2 — 608 would permit the plaintiff to rescind. Reaching that conclusion requires a determination that the defects here caused the vehicle to fail to conform to a contract which permitted the motor vehicle to be merchantable. The instant automobile was unfit for ordinary use as an automobile, but that deficiency is precisely the type of deficiency which makes goods unmerchantable. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1979, ch. 26, par. 2 — 314(2)(c). As we have done here, I would hold the seller strictly to the requirements for disclaimer of implied warranties, but had the disclaimer been properly effectuated, I would deem it to be a close question as to whether the disclaimer should be given the narrow application proposed by the majority.