Mydlach v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. - 226 Ill. 2d 307, 314 Ill. Dec. 760, 875 N.E.2d 1047 (2007)

Rule:

A warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 2301 et seq., includes promises to repair products in the future whose inherent reliability is not warranted and includes a repair or replacement warranty. A limited repair warranty falls within the definition of a "written warranty" under 15 U.S.C.S. § 2301(6)(B) of the Act. Revocation of acceptance is conceptually inapplicable to a non-seller.

Facts:

Lucy Mydlach, plaintiff car buyer, purchased from a car dealer a used car that was made by DaimlerChrysler Corporation, defendant car manufacturer. At that time, the car was still under the defendant car manufacturer's limited warranty. Plaintiff, because of problems with the car that she alleged were not fixed, brought her claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 2301 et seq. Plaintiff sued defendant for breach of written warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, and revocation of acceptance.  The circuit court ruled that the claims were time-barred under the four-year statute of limitations in 810 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-725 (2006) of the Illinois Uniform Commercial Code. . The court of appeals affirmed as to the implied warranty claim, but reversed as to the breach of written warranty and revocation of acceptance claims. The car manufacturer appealed.

Issue:

1. Was the plaintiff’s claim under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act proper?

2. Did the court of appeals erred when it;

• 2.1 affirmed the decision as to the implied warranty claim?
• 2.2 reversed as to the breach of written warranty and revocation of acceptance claims?

Answer:

1. Yes. 2.1 No. 2.2 Yes.

Conclusion:

The appellate court’s judgment reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant car manufacturer as to the breach of written warranty claim was affirmed, and the judgment of the appellate court reversing the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the car manufacturer as to the revocation of acceptance claim was reversed. Also, the state supreme court found that plaintiff could bring a breach of written warranty claim under 15 U.S.C.S. § 2310 of the Magnuson-Moss Act because the claim was not barred under 810 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-725 as the limitations period did not begin to run from when the car was bought but from when the repairs under the warranty were not made. However, plaintiff car buyer could not bring a revocation of acceptance claim under 15 U.S.C.S. § 2310 because revocation of acceptance was unavailable under 810 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/2-608 (2006) against defendant car manufacturer who was not a party to the sales contract.