ILCS » Chapter 810 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

810 ILCS 5/2-315 (2026)

Implied warranty: fitness for particular purpose

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(810 ILCS 5/2-315) (from Ch. 26, par. 2-315)
    Sec. 2-315. Implied warranty: fitness for particular purpose.
    Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is unless excluded or modified under the next section an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 2101.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016). · cites it 2× “Code § 11-2-315; Idaho Code § 28-2-315 ; 810 ILCS 5/2-315; Ind. Code § 26-1-2-315 ; Me.”
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Usinor Industeel, 393 F. Supp. 2d 659 (N.D. Ill. 2005). · cites it 2× “) Usinor notes that Caterpillar only bought truck bodies from CMSA, and never directly bought Creusabro steel from anyone.”
Econ. Folding Box Corp. v. Anchor Frozen Foods Corp., 515 F.3d 718 (7th Cir. 2008). “The district court analyzed Economy’s claims under the Illinois version of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) and found that, although Anchor accepted the boxes, it properly revoked its acceptance under 810 ILCS 5/2-608 after learning of the boxes’ defects.”
In Re Mcdonald's French Fries Litig., 503 F. Supp. 2d 953 (N.D. Ill. 2007). “(citing 810 ILCS 5/2-315). In this case, plaintiffs do not allege that the consumption of the potato products is not the ordinary use of such products or that defendant had reason to know what the particular, non-ordinary use of the product would be.”
Rosenstern v. Allergan, Inc., 987 F. Supp. 2d 795 (N.D. Ill. 2013). “” 810 ILCS 5/2-315; S. Side Trust & Sav. Bank of Peoria v.”
Sille v. McCann Constr. Specialties Co., 638 N.E.2d 676 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). “2-315 now 810 ILCS 5/2-315 (West 1992)), and Count IV alleges breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under section 2-314 of the UCC (Ill.”
Loeffel Steel Prods., Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc., 379 F. Supp. 2d 968 (N.D. Ill. 2005). “Finally, under § 2-315 of the UCC, when the seller has reason to know the buyer needs the goods for a particular purpose and knows the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill in selecting the goods, an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is inferred.”
Budnick Converting, Inc. v. Nebula Glass Int'l, Inc., 866 F. Supp. 2d 976 (S.D. Ill. 2012). “See 810 ILCS 5/2-315 (“Where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller’s skill or judgment to select or furnish *1002 suitable goods, there is unless excluded or…”
Banco Del Estado v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 942 F. Supp. 1176 (N.D. Ill. 1996). “810 ILCS 5/2-315 (1996). In this case, the Bank has failed to allege that it relied on Navistar to furnish suitable goods.”
Cameron v. Battery Handling Sys., Inc. (C.D. Ill. 2021). · cites it 6× “While Berry involved a claim for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, codified at 810 ILCS 5/2-315 (“section 2-315”), Berry, 309 N.”
Sundstrand Corp. v. Lake Shore, Inc., 840 F. Supp. 588 (N.D. Ill. 1994). “” Counts III, IV and V all reallege the factual allegations of Count I and seek recovery for breach of contract, breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, see 810 ILCS 5/2-315 (1993), and breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, see 810 ILCS…”
Albrosco Ltd. v. Prince Agri Prods. Inc. (C.D. Ill. 2021). · cites it 2× “2d at 746 (citing 810 ILCS 5/2-315). “A ‘particular purpose’ differs from the ordinary purpose for which the goods are used in that it envisages a specific use by the buyer which is peculiar to the nature of his business whereas the ordinary purposes for which goods are used are…”
Show all 21 citing cases →
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.