ILCS » Chapter 810 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

810 ILCS 5/2-316 (2026)

Exclusion or modification of warranties

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(810 ILCS 5/2-316) (from Ch. 26, par. 2-316)
    Sec. 2-316. Exclusion or modification of warranties. (1) Words or conduct relevant to the creation of an express warranty and words or conduct tending to negate or limit warranty shall be construed wherever reasonable as consistent with each other; but subject to the provisions of this Article on parol or extrinsic evidence (Section 2-202) negation or limitation is inoperative to the extent that such construction is unreasonable.
    (2) Subject to subsection (3), to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous. Language to exclude all implied warranties of fitness is sufficient if it states, for example, that "There are no warranties which extend beyond the description on the face hereof."
    (3) Notwithstanding subsection (2)
    (a) unless the circumstances indicate otherwise, all implied warranties are excluded by expressions like "as is", "with all faults" or other language which in common understanding calls the buyer's attention to the exclusion of warranties and makes plain that there is no implied warranty; and
    (b) when the buyer before entering into the contract has examined the goods or the sample or model as fully as he desired or has refused to examine the goods there is no implied warranty with regard to defects which an examination ought in the circumstances to have revealed to him; and
    (c) an implied warranty can also be excluded or modified by course of dealing or course of performance or usage of trade; and
    (d) the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose do not apply to the sale of cattle, swine, sheep, horses, poultry and turkeys, or the unborn young of any of the foregoing, provided the seller has made reasonable efforts to comply with State and federal regulations pertaining to animal health. This exemption does not apply if the seller had knowledge that the animal was diseased at the time of the sale.
    (4) Remedies for breach of warranty can be limited in accordance with the provisions of this Article on liquidation or limitation of damages and on contractual modification of remedy (Sections 2-718 and 2-719).
(Source: P.A. 82-234.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33 cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1994–2025 · 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× “(citing 810 ILCS 5/2-316(2); 810 ILCS 5/1-201(1)) (“[IJanguage in the body of a form is ‘conspicuous’ if it is in larger or other contrasting type or col- or.”
Lefebvre Intergraphics, Inc. v. Sanden Mach. Ltd., 946 F. Supp. 1358 (N.D. Ill. 1996). · cites it 5× “” 810 ILCS 5/2-316(2). Section 2-316(3) provides that “[njotwithstanding subsection (2), .”
Calvin Horne v. Elec. Eel Mfg. Com, 987 F.3d 704 (7th Cir. 2021). “” See 810 ILCS 5/2-316 (“Exclusion or modification or warranties”).”
Semitekol v. Monaco Coach Corp., 582 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (N.D. Ill. 2008). · cites it 3× “” 810 ILCS 5/2-316(2)-(3); accord Voelker v.”
Clemons v. Nissan North Am., Inc., 2013 IL App (4th) 120943 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 3× “810 ILCS 5/2-316 (West 2010); Snelten v. Schmidt Implement Co.”
Tague v. Autobarn Motors, Ltd., 914 N.E.2d 710 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). · cites it 2× “Under section 2-316(2) of Illinois's Uniform Commercial Code (Code) (810 ILCS 5/2-316(2) (West 2004)), in order to exclude or modify an implied warranty of merchantability, the language must be "conspicuous.”
Shannon v. Boise Cascade, 783 N.E.2d 1105 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “We further reject the circuit court's contention that plaintiff's cause of action is inconsistent with the Uniform Commercial Code (810 ILCS 5/2-316(2), (3) (West 2000)), which allows the disclaimer of an implied warranty of merchantability.”
Clemons v. Nissan North Am., Inc., 2013 IL App (4th) 120943 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 6× “810 ILCS 5/2-316 (West 2010). Under section 2-316(1) of the UCC, a warranty disclaimer inconsistent with an express warranty is inoperative.”
Westfield Ins. Co. v. Birkey's Farm Store, 924 N.E.2d 1231 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “"[S]ection 2-316 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) (810 ILCS 5/2-316(2) (West 2004)) requires that all written disclaimers of the implied warranties of merchantability or fitness must be conspicuous.”
Shannon v. Boise Cascade, 766 N.E.2d 1136 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “We further reject the circuit court's contention that plaintiff's cause of action is inconsistent with the Uniform Commercial Code (810 ILCS 5/2-316(2), (3) (West 2000)), which allows the disclaimer of an implied warranty of merchantability.”
Hays v. Gen. Elec. Co., 151 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (N.D. Ill. 2001). “” 810 ILCS 5/2-316(3)(b). Whether a particular defect “ought to appear” from testing depends on the “particular buyer’s skill and normal *1014 method of examination.”
Duffy v. Ticketreserve, Inc., 722 F. Supp. 2d 977 (N.D. Ill. 2010). “They cite Illinois’s version of the Uniform Commercial Code, 810 ILCS 5/2-316, under which such warranty limitations are enforceable only if they may be reasonably construed with *990 the remainder of the contract and are sufficiently conspicuous.”
Show all 33 citing cases →
— 810 ILCS 5/2-316(1) — 3 cases
Clemons v. Nissan North Am., Inc., 2013 IL App (4th) 120943 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “810 ILCS 5/2-316 (West 2010); Snelten v. Schmidt Implement Co.”
Clemons v. Nissan North Am., Inc., 2013 IL App (4th) 120943 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “810 ILCS 5/2-316 (West 2010). Under section 2-316(1) of the UCC, a warranty disclaimer inconsistent with an express warranty is inoperative.”
Westerman v. Junior's Auto Mart, LLC, 2024 IL App (4th) 240432-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024).
— 810 ILCS 5/2-316(2) — 18 cases
In re Rust-Oleum Restore Mktg., Sales Practices & Prods. Liab. Litig., 155 F. Supp. 3d 772 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “(citing 810 ILCS 5/2-316(2); 810 ILCS 5/1-201(1)) (“[IJanguage in the body of a form is ‘conspicuous’ if it is in larger or other contrasting type or col- or.”
Semitekol v. Monaco Coach Corp., 582 F. Supp. 2d 1009 (N.D. Ill. 2008). “” 810 ILCS 5/2-316(2)-(3); accord Voelker v.”
Lefebvre Intergraphics, Inc. v. Sanden Mach. Ltd., 946 F. Supp. 1358 (N.D. Ill. 1996). “” 810 ILCS 5/2-316(2). Section 2-316(3) provides that “[njotwithstanding subsection (2), .”
Shannon v. Boise Cascade, 783 N.E.2d 1105 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “We further reject the circuit court's contention that plaintiff's cause of action is inconsistent with the Uniform Commercial Code (810 ILCS 5/2-316(2), (3) (West 2000)), which allows the disclaimer of an implied warranty of merchantability.”
Westfield Ins. Co. v. Birkey's Farm Store, 924 N.E.2d 1231 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “"[S]ection 2-316 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) (810 ILCS 5/2-316(2) (West 2004)) requires that all written disclaimers of the implied warranties of merchantability or fitness must be conspicuous.”
— 810 ILCS 5/2-316(3) — 2 cases
Boyd v. Steve's Key City Auto, 2017 IL App (3d) 160614 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
Boyd v. Steve's Key City Auto, 2017 IL App (3d) 160614 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018).
— 810 ILCS 5/2-316(3)(a) — 8 cases
Lefebvre Intergraphics, Inc. v. Sanden Mach. Ltd., 946 F. Supp. 1358 (N.D. Ill. 1996). “” 810 ILCS 5/2-316(2). Section 2-316(3) provides that “[njotwithstanding subsection (2), .”
Tague v. Autobarn Motors, Ltd., 914 N.E.2d 710 (Ill. App. Ct. 2009). “Under section 2-316(2) of Illinois's Uniform Commercial Code (Code) (810 ILCS 5/2-316(2) (West 2004)), in order to exclude or modify an implied warranty of merchantability, the language must be "conspicuous.”
Pardo v. Mecum Auction Inc., 77 F. Supp. 3d 703 (N.D. Ill. 2014).
Boyd v. Steve's Key City Auto, 2017 IL App (3d) 160614 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
Xchange Motors, Inc. v. Impson, 2024 IL App (3d) 240133-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2024).
— 810 ILCS 5/2-316(3)(b) — 3 cases
Hays v. Gen. Elec. Co., 151 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (N.D. Ill. 2001). “” 810 ILCS 5/2-316(3)(b). Whether a particular defect “ought to appear” from testing depends on the “particular buyer’s skill and normal *1014 method of examination.”
Ellengee Mkt. Co. v. Phenix Specialty Films, LLC (N.D. Ill. 2021).
Dacor Corp., an Illinois Corp., Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Appellee v. Sierra Precision, a California Corp., Defendant-Counterplaintiff-Appellant, 19 F.3d 21 (7th Cir. 1994).
— 810 ILCS 5/2-316(3)(c) — 2 cases
Ellengee Mkt. Co. v. Phenix Specialty Films, LLC (N.D. Ill. 2021).
R.O.W. Window Co. v. Allmetal, Inc. (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.