warranty claim in Illinois

1930Co., 236 Ill. 444 .” And the court, citing Continental Life Ins.

1910Co., 236 Ill. 444 , the court said, in relation to certain answers in the application for insurance which the company sought to uphold as warranties: “The doctrine of warranty, in the law of insurance, is one of great rigor and frequently operates very harshly upon the assured, and courts will never construe a statement as a warranty unless the language of the policy is so clear as to preclude any other construction.” In McClain v. Providence Savings Life Assn., 110 Fed.

2000To recover on a warranty claim, a party need only show that the warranty is party of the contract, and is relied upon. "[T]he right to indemnification depends only on establishing that the warranty was breached." CBS , 553 N.E.2d at 1001 .

2000To recover on a warranty claim, a party need only show that the warranty is part of the contract and is relied upon. “[T]he right to indemnification depends only on establishing that the warranty was breached.” CBS, 75 N.Y.2d at 503-04 , 553 N.E.2d at 1001 .

1997Such damage means simply that the product has not met the customer’s expectations or, in other words, that the customer has received " 'insufficient product value.’ ” East River, 476 U.S. at 872 , 90 L.

1997Such damage means simply that the product has not met the customer’s expectations or, in other words, that the customer has received " 'insufficient product value.’ ” East River, 476 U.S. at 872 , 90 L.

1922In Weisguth v. Supreme Tribe Ben Hur, supra, the court at page 546 says: “It is only in cases where the policy will admit of no other construction that a statement contained' therein will be construed as a warranty. ‘The doctrine of warranty, in the law of insurance is one of great rigor and frequently operates very harshly upon the assured, and courts will never construe a statement as a warranty unless the language of the policy is so clear as to preclude any other construction.’ Spence v. Central Accident Ins.

1893Assuming that the contract contained a warranty that the steers should be good merchantable cattle, and that both they and the cows should not be under the specified ages, and that the warranty was not waived by the acceptance of the cattle, but survived their acceptance, then, as held in Underwood v. Wolf, 131 Ill. 425 , the appellant relying upon a breach of the warranty as a defense, or by way of set-off, the burden of proof was upon him as to such breach, and as to any damages; and unless he proved such breach and damages by a preponderance of the evidence, he is not entitled to any benefi

1886The rule applicable here is thus stated in Chitty, Con., 363: “ When vendor of warranted chattels sues for the price, it is competent for defendant purchaser to prove breach of warranty in reduction of damages, although goods were sold at a fixed price and have not been returned ; if no offer is made to return goods, the measure of damages is the difference between sum given and real value.” In Mears v. Nichols, 41 Ill. 207 , it is held, “ Where there is an express warranty that an article is of a certain quality, and shall answer a specific purpose, it is not necessary that the purchaser shal

1886The rule applicable here is thus stated in Chitty, Con., 363: “ When vendor of warranted chattels sues for the price, it is competent for defendant purchaser to prove breach of warranty in reduction of damages, although goods were sold at a fixed price and have not been returned ; if no offer is made to return goods, the measure of damages is the difference between sum given and real value.” In Mears v. Nichols, 41 Ill. 207 , it is held, “ Where there is an express warranty that an article is of a certain quality, and shall answer a specific purpose, it is not necessary that the purchaser shal

1886The rule applicable here is thus stated in Chitty, Con., 363: “ When vendor of warranted chattels sues for the price, it is competent for defendant purchaser to prove breach of warranty in reduction of damages, although goods were sold at a fixed price and have not been returned ; if no offer is made to return goods, the measure of damages is the difference between sum given and real value.” In Mears v. Nichols, 41 Ill. 207 , it is held, “ Where there is an express warranty that an article is of a certain quality, and shall answer a specific purpose, it is not necessary that the purchaser shal