ILCS » Chapter 810 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

810 ILCS 5/2-314 (2026)

Implied warranty: merchantability; usage of trade

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(810 ILCS 5/2-314) (from Ch. 26, par. 2-314)
    Sec. 2-314. Implied warranty: merchantability; usage of trade.
    (1) Unless excluded or modified (Section 2-316), a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind. Under this Section the serving for value of food or drink to be consumed either on the premises or elsewhere is a sale.
    (2) Goods to be merchantable must be at least such as
        (a) pass without objection in the trade under the
    
contract description; and
        (b) in the case of fungible goods, are of fair
    
average quality within the description; and
        (c) are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such
    
goods are used; and
        (d) run, within the variations permitted by the
    
agreement, of even kind, quality and quantity within each unit and among all units involved; and
        (e) are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled
    
as the agreement may require; and
        (f) conform to the promises or affirmations of fact
    
made on the container or label if any.
    (3) Unless excluded or modified (Section 2-316) other implied warranties may arise from course of dealing or usage of trade.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 2101.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 94 cases (44 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Calvin Horne v. Elec. Eel Mfg. Com, 987 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 2021).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Calvin Horne v. Elec. Eel Mfg. Com, 987 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 2021). “Horne responded in the district court that the provision violates public policy as expressed in the Uniform Commercial Code (as adopted by Illinois at 810 ILCS 5/2-314), that there was a substantial disparity in the bargaining positions between Horne as an individual and Home…”
Paul Priebe v. Autobarn, Ltd., 240 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 2001). “Priebe sued Autobarn claiming that: (1) Autobarn breached the Easy Care Service Contract which also violated the Magnu-son-Moss Act; (2) Autobarn breached an implied warranty under 810 ILCS 5/2-314 which also violated the Magnuson-Moss Act; (3) Priebe validly revoked acceptance;…”
Baldwin v. Star Sci., Inc., 78 F. Supp. 3d 724 (N.D. Ill. 2015). “2d at 748 (citing 810 ILCS 5/2-314). “To be merchantable, the goods must be, among other things, fit for the ordinary purpose for which the goods are used.”
Walker v. Shults Auto Sales, Inc., 2025 IL App (2d) 240459 (Ill. App. Ct. 2025). · cites it 3× “-2- 2025 IL App (2d) 240459 Count II alleged that defendant violated the implied warranty of merchantability under section 2- 314 of the UCC (810 ILCS 5/2-314 (West 2020)), in that the vehicle was not fit for its ordinary purpose.”
Check v. Clifford Chrysler-Plymouth of Buffalo Grove, Inc., 794 N.E.2d 829 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “]" 810 ILCS 5/2-314(1), (2)(a), (c) (West 1996).”
Anthony v. Country Life Mfg., LLC., 70 F. App'x 379 (7th Cir. 2003). “Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability Claim In her last count, Anthony alleges a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under 810 ILCS 5/2-314, which provides that a merchant-seller of goods impliedly warrants that the goods are “fit for the ordinary purposes…”
Brandt v. Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Ctr., 771 N.E.2d 470 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). · cites it 2× “Section 2-314 of the UCC states: "(1) Unless excluded or modified * * *, a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind.”
Maldonado v. Creative Woodworking Concepts, Inc., 694 N.E.2d 1021 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “A review of the count against Creative, which alleges that the door should have had a hook on it in order to be fit for its ordinary purpose, demonstrates that the plaintiffs stated the basic elements of a cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability…”
Stella v. LVMH Perfumes & Cosmetics USA, Inc., 564 F. Supp. 2d 833 (N.D. Ill. 2008). “” 810 ILCS 5/2-314(c). Although defendant concedes the complaint plainly alleges there are dangerous levels of lead in the lipstick, it still argues this does not sufficiently provide the lipstick was not fit for its ordinary purpose.”
Frye v. L'oreal USA, Inc., 583 F. Supp. 2d 954 (N.D. Ill. 2008). “(Count I); breach of implied warranty under the Unified Commercial Code, 810 ILCS 5/2-314 (Count II); breach of implied warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.”
Adkins v. Nestle Purina Petcare Co., 973 F. Supp. 2d 905 (N.D. Ill. 2013). “Accordingly to plaintiffs, the reason for creating both express and implied warranties based on the same representations is to increase the circumstances under which such representations are actionable, by making them actionable even if they do not form part of the basis of the…”
In re 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 348 F. Supp. 3d 797 (E.D. Ill. 2018). “314 (2)(f) ; 810 ILCS 5/2-314(2)(f) ; Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.”
Show all 94 citing cases →
— 810 ILCS 5/2-314(1) — 20 cases
Check v. Clifford Chrysler-Plymouth of Buffalo Grove, Inc., 794 N.E.2d 829 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “]" 810 ILCS 5/2-314(1), (2)(a), (c) (West 1996).”
Semitekol v. Monaco Coach Corp., 582 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (N.D. Ill. 2008).
Martinez v. Prestige Imports, Inc., 2024 IL App (2d) 240121 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024).
Brandt v. Sarah Bush Lincoln Health Ctr., 771 N.E.2d 470 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “Section 2-314 of the UCC states: "(1) Unless excluded or modified * * *, a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind.”
Boyd v. Steve's Key City Auto, 2017 IL App (3d) 160614 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
— 810 ILCS 5/2-314(2) — 13 cases
Boyd v. Steve's Key City Auto, 2017 IL App (3d) 160614 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
Abramov v. The Home Depot, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2018).
Coolab Foods, LLC v. Creamalicious, Inc. (N.D. Ill. 2023).
Bay Valley Foods, LLC v. FFI Grp., LLC & Kramer Corp. of Ga. (N.D. Ill. 2025).
Boyd v. Steve's Key City Auto, 2017 IL App (3d) 160614 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
— 810 ILCS 5/2-314(2)(a) — 1 case
Westerman v. Junior's Auto Mart, LLC, 2024 IL App (4th) 240432-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024).
— 810 ILCS 5/2-314(2)(b) — 1 case
Bay Valley Foods, LLC v. FFI Grp., LLC & Kramer Corp. of Ga. (N.D. Ill. 2025).
— 810 ILCS 5/2-314(2)(c) — 25 cases
Maldonado v. Creative Woodworking Concepts, Inc., 694 N.E.2d 1021 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “A review of the count against Creative, which alleges that the door should have had a hook on it in order to be fit for its ordinary purpose, demonstrates that the plaintiffs stated the basic elements of a cause of action for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability…”
Kinman v. The Kroger Co. (N.D. Ill. 2022).
Piatek (N.D. Ill. 2026).
Moore v. Abiomed, Inc. (C.D. Ill. 2019).
Davis v. Ricola USA, Inc. (C.D. Ill. 2022).
— 810 ILCS 5/2-314(2)(f) — 4 cases
In re 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig., 348 F. Supp. 3d 797 (E.D. Ill. 2018). “314 (2)(f) ; 810 ILCS 5/2-314(2)(f) ; Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.”
Piatek (N.D. Ill. 2026).
In Re: 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese Mktg. & Sales Practices Litig. (N.D. Ill. 2018).
Scholle IPN Packaging, Inc. v. Valfilm, LLC (N.D. Ill. 2019).
— 810 ILCS 5/2-314(c) — 1 case
Stella v. LVMH Perfumes & Cosmetics USA, Inc., 564 F. Supp. 2d 833 (N.D. Ill. 2008). “” 810 ILCS 5/2-314(c). Although defendant concedes the complaint plainly alleges there are dangerous levels of lead in the lipstick, it still argues this does not sufficiently provide the lipstick was not fit for its ordinary purpose.”
— 810 ILCS 5/2-314(c)(2) — 1 case
Mydlach v. DaimlerChrysler (Ill. App. Ct. 2006).
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.