Schultz v. Jackson

• Citation: 385 N.E.2d 162,24 Ill.Dec. 395,67 Ill.App.3d 889
• Decision Date: 10 January 1979
• Docket Number: No. 77-459,77-459
• Parties: , 24 Ill.Dec. 395, 25 UCC Rep.Serv. 1300 LeRoy SCHULTZ, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant, v. Robert JACKSON, d/b/a Jackson Sales and Service, Defendant-Appellee, v. DRIALL, INC., Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 162

385 N.E.2d 162

67 Ill.App.3d 889, 24 Ill.Dec. 395,

25 UCC Rep.Serv. 1300

LeRoy SCHULTZ, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross Appellant, v. Robert JACKSON, d/b/a Jackson Sales and Service, Defendant-Appellee, v. DRIALL, INC., Defendant-Appellant-Cross Appellee.

No. 77-459.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Jan. 10, 1979.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 13, 1979.

John A. Berry, Berry & O'Conor, Streator, for defendant-appellant-cross appellee.

Matthew A. Maloney, Princeton, for plaintiff-appellee-cross appellant.

Boyle & Goldsmith, Hennepin, for Robert Jackson.

STOUDER, Justice:

Plaintiff, LeRoy Schultz, brought this action against the defendant, Robert Jackson, a farm implement dealer and against the defendant, Driall, Inc., the manufacturer of a grain drier, claiming that each defendant breached express and implied warranties. The jury found in favor of the plaintiff against Driall on a count charging breach of an implied warranty, but against the plaintiff on all other counts. The court entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff against Driall for $29,350, which was reduced by the court to $19,350 because of a credit to which the defendant was entitled.

During the summer of 1974, plaintiff, a farmer, attended the Illinois State fair and observed a grain drier manufactured by the defendant Driall, Inc. of Attica, Indiana. While at the fair, plaintiff discussed the possible purchase of a drier with the Driall representative. On about the 1st of September, a local dealer, Robert Jackson, of Wyoming, Illinois, called on plaintiff resulting in a written contract to purchase a grain drier manufactured by Driall. The drier was delivered to plaintiff's farm and set up during October, 1974 and was in operating condition after the electrical connections were made by the electrician on November 2, 1974. Plaintiff used the corn drier to dry small batches of corn on November 2, November 16 and November 19. On each of these dates plaintiff started the drier on manual operation, but when the drier was switched to automatic operation, either the motor stopped or the fuses controlling the motor were blown. After communicating his troubles to defendant Jackson on Saturday, November 23, two representatives from Driall called on plaintiff, made some adjustments on the equipment and also offered further explanations on the proper operation of the drier. At the time the representatives left, the drier was operating on automatic, but later in the afternoon, it stopped. On November 26, 1974, plaintiff again talked to a representative of Driall who recommended an adjustment which did not help. Again on December 5, plaintiff talked with a representative of Driall complaining of the same trouble, but at this point Driall refused to send any serviceman unless plaintiff agreed to pay for the service call. This plaintiff declined to do and on December 23 he delivered the drier to Jackson's premises. It appears that after the drier was delivered to Jackson, Driall changed its mind and offered to send a repairman at its expense, but since the drier was no longer in plaintiff's possession, this offer was not accepted. After this litigation was commenced during the summer of 1975, Jackson sold the drier to another farmer who claimed to have used the drier thereafter without any difficulties. Plaintiff learned of the resale and the apparent purchase price of $10,000, requested that the same be deposited with the Clerk of the Court to abide the resolution of the litigation and it is this $10,000 which was credited on the judgment.

At the time that Jackson delivered the drier to plaintiff on October 14, he also delivered to plaintiff the Owner's Manual. The first page of the Owner's Manual was the express warranty made by Driall. It was as follows:

"WARRANTY"

"The manufacturer warrants the mechanical parts of DriALL driers against defective material and workmanship for a period of one year from delivery date and agrees to repair or replace (at its option) such defective parts F.O.B., Attica, Indiana.

All electrical parts are warranted to the extent of the warranty provided by the respective manufacturers of each electrical part.

This warranty is made in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied and the manufacturer shall in no event be liable for any warranty expressed or implied beyond the repair or replacement of the defective parts. This warranty to repair or replace these defective parts shall cease if the equipment has been altered or the equipment is not operated in accordance with the instructions or if the temperature controls are disregarded or not used."

The plaintiff read the warranty, understood the conditions, and also read the remainder of the manual concerning the operation of the drier.

The plaintiff claimed damages for $12,000, the cost of the drier, approximately $17,000 for corn which spoiled or which could not be picked until too late in the season and an additional $3,000 for a storage bin purchased to be used with the particular drier. The jury's verdict of $29,350 represented all of the damages claimed by the plaintiff except for the amount of the storage bin.

Plaintiff's complaint consists of four counts. Count I was directed against the defendant, Jackson, and was for breach of the express warranty as specified in the owner's manual. Count II is directed against the defendant, Jackson and is based on an alleged implied warranty on the part of Jackson at the time of said sale that said drier was fit for the particular purpose for which it was intended. Count III is addressed against the defendant, Driall and is based on the breach of the express warranty contained in the Owner's Manual. Count IV is directed against Driall and is based on an alleged implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose for which it was intended. The express warranty referred to in Count I and III is the same warranty contained in the owner's manual which is quoted at length earlier in this opinion. Defendants Jackson and Driall admitted the express warranty was contained in the owner's manual delivered to Schultz, but denied the warranty had been breached. They also claimed in their answer that the specific terms of the written express warranty excluded any implied warranties.

As indicated earlier, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Driall on Count IV of the complaint which charged breach of an implied warranty, but against the plaintiff on all other counts. Driall has appealed from the judgment against them. Plaintiff has cross-appealed with respect to the judgment against him on Count II which alleged Jackson breached an implied warranty. The cross-appeal by plaintiff is a contingent appeal to be considered only if this court determines that the judgment against Driall is erroneous. No cross-appeals have been filed by the plaintiff from the adverse judgment on Counts I and III based on a breach of an express warranty.

Counts II and IV, charging breach of an implied warranty respectively against Jackson and Driall, referred to breach of...