ILCS » Chapter 810 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

810 ILCS 5/2-313 (2026)

Express warranties by affirmation, promise, description, sample

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(810 ILCS 5/2-313) (from Ch. 26, par. 2-313)
    Sec. 2-313. Express warranties by affirmation, promise, description, sample.
    (1) Express warranties by the seller are created as follows:
        (a) Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the
    
seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the affirmation or promise.
        (b) Any description of the goods which is made part
    
of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description.
        (c) Any sample or model which is made part of the
    
basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the whole of the goods shall conform to the sample or model.
    (2) It is not necessary to the creation of an express warranty that the seller use formal words such as "warrant" or "guarantee" or that he have a specific intention to make a warranty, but an affirmation merely of the value of the goods or a statement purporting to be merely the seller's opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 2101.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 49 cases (22 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: Caterpillar, Inc. v. Usinor Industeel, 393 F. Supp. 2d 659 (N.D. Ill. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Usinor Industeel, 393 F. Supp. 2d 659 (N.D. Ill. 2005). · cites it 4× “at 332 (West 1998) (hereinafter the “CISG”), 1 and the Illinois version of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), 810 ILCS 5/2-313, 5/2-315 (Counts II and V); promissory estoppel (Counts III and VIII); and violation of French law (Count XI).”
In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “Code § 11-2-313; Idaho Code § 28-2-313 ; 810 ILCS 5/2-313; Ind. Code § 26-1-2-313 ; Me.”
Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 675 N.E.2d 584 (Ill. 1996). “As the majority observes, both the Illinois and Pennsylvania Commercial Codes provide that "[a]ny affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods…”
Gredell v. Wyeth Labs., Inc., 803 N.E.2d 541 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “Plaintiff alleged that defendants misrepresented the effectiveness of the five drugs, thereby violating the Consumer Fraud Act, the implied and express warranty provisions of the Uniform Commercial Code (810 ILCS 5/2-313, 5-314 (West 2002)) (the UCC), the Magnuson-Moss Warranty…”
Weng v. Allison, 678 N.E.2d 1254 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). · cites it 2× “(810 ILCS 5/2-313 (Michie 1994)), see, Redmac, Inc.”
Loeffel Steel Prods., Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc., 379 F. Supp. 2d 968 (N.D. Ill. 2005). · cites it 2× “” 10 *982 Under the UCC, “an affirmation merely of the value of the goods or a statement purporting to be merely the seller’s opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty,” 810 ILCS 5/2-313(2). These kinds of statements are generally deemed puffing.”
Giles v. Wyeth, Inc., 500 F. Supp. 2d 1063 (S.D. Ill. 2007). “810 ILCS 5/2-313 speaks to this issue and provides as follows: (a) Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the…”
Roberts v. Robert v. Rohrman, Inc., 909 F. Supp. 545 (N.D. Ill. 1995). · cites it 2× “Roberts relies on the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) section 2-313, incorporated into Illinois law at 810 ILCS 5/2-313, to support her claim. Section 2-313 provides that express warranties are created by either: (a) Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the…”
McNichols v. Johnson & Johnson, 461 F. Supp. 2d 736 (S.D. Ill. 2006). “See 810 ILCS 5/2-313; 810 ILCS 5/2-314. In addition to the reasons the Court already has given for refusing to find fraudulent joinder based on the learned intermediary doctrine in this case, certain other considerations militate against applying the doctrine in the context of a…”
Kernats v. Smith Indus. Med. Sys., Inc., 669 N.E.2d 1300 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “See 810 ILCS 5/2-313 (West 1994); 810 ILCS 5/2-314 (West 1994).”
Kenworth of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Seventy-Seven Ltd., Convey All, LLC, Keller Trucking, Inc., K&K Aggregate, Inc., Huber Transp., LLC, Triple H Trucking, LLC, & Custom Hauling, Inc., 112 N.E.3d 1106 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “" 810 ILCS 5/2-313(1) (West 2006). The UCC makes plain that an express warranty is related to the quality or description of the goods.”
Allen v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 264 F.R.D. 412 (N.D. Ill. 2009). “July 25, 2008) (noting that Illinois courts have not been consistent in assessing whether the “basis of the bargain” language in 810 ILCS 5/2-313 requires that the plaintiff actually relied on the warranty).”
Show all 49 citing cases →
— 810 ILCS 5/2-313(1) — 2 cases
Kenworth of Indianapolis, Inc. v. Seventy-Seven Ltd., Convey All, LLC, Keller Trucking, Inc., K&K Aggregate, Inc., Huber Transp., LLC, Triple H Trucking, LLC, & Custom Hauling, Inc., 112 N.E.3d 1106 (Ind. Ct. App. 2018). “" 810 ILCS 5/2-313(1) (West 2006). The UCC makes plain that an express warranty is related to the quality or description of the goods.”
Nowalski v. Ford Motor Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 2002).
— 810 ILCS 5/2-313(1)(a) — 12 cases
Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 675 N.E.2d 584 (Ill. 1996). “As the majority observes, both the Illinois and Pennsylvania Commercial Codes provide that "[a]ny affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the buyer which relates to the goods and becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods…”
Aquino v. C. R. Bard, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2019).
Ellengee Mkt. Co. v. Phenix Specialty Films, LLC (N.D. Ill. 2021).
GFRB, LLC v. Worthy Promotional Prods., LLC (N.D. Ill. 2022).
Cristia v. Trader Joe's Co. (N.D. Ill. 2022).
— 810 ILCS 5/2-313(1)(b) — 2 cases
Sneed v. Ferrero U.S.A., Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2023).
Bayer HealthCare LLC v. Aeropres Corp. (N.D. Ill. 2024).
— 810 ILCS 5/2-313(2) — 3 cases
Loeffel Steel Prods., Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc., 379 F. Supp. 2d 968 (N.D. Ill. 2005). “” 10 *982 Under the UCC, “an affirmation merely of the value of the goods or a statement purporting to be merely the seller’s opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty,” 810 ILCS 5/2-313(2). These kinds of statements are generally deemed puffing.”
Roberts v. Robert v. Rohrman, Inc., 909 F. Supp. 545 (N.D. Ill. 1995). “Roberts relies on the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) section 2-313, incorporated into Illinois law at 810 ILCS 5/2-313, to support her claim. Section 2-313 provides that express warranties are created by either: (a) Any affirmation of fact or promise made by the seller to the…”
Castaneda v. Amazon.Com, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2023).
— 810 ILCS 5/2-313(a) — 3 cases
Perkins v. Johnson & Johnson (C.D. Ill. 2021).
Parrott v. Fam. Dollar, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2019).
Bakopoulos v. Mars Petcare US, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2022).
— 810 ILCS 5/2-313(b) — 1 case
Hasek v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (Ill. App. Ct. 2001).
— 810 ILCS 5/2-313(l)(a) — 1 case
Loeffel Steel Prods., Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc., 379 F. Supp. 2d 968 (N.D. Ill. 2005). “” 10 *982 Under the UCC, “an affirmation merely of the value of the goods or a statement purporting to be merely the seller’s opinion or commendation of the goods does not create a warranty,” 810 ILCS 5/2-313(2). These kinds of statements are generally deemed puffing.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.