{ "id": 3524734, "name": "WARREN LATHROP, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GERALD L. TYRRELL, Defendant-Appellant", "name_abbreviation": "Lathrop v. Tyrrell", "decision_date": "1984-11-30", "docket_number": "No. 3\u201484\u20140313", "first_page": "1067", "last_page": "1069", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "128 Ill. App. 3d 1067" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "358 N.E.2d 382", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1972, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "292 N.E.2d 168", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "9 Ill. App. 3d 348", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2845379 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/9/0348-01" ] }, { "cite": "44 Ill. App. 3d 530", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d", "case_ids": [ 2813213 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-app-3d/44/0530-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 273, "char_count": 3821, "ocr_confidence": 0.748, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.635137826149966e-08, "percentile": 0.40472359585443013 }, "sha256": "4d8d09b14c4df1546786f71fc053fc386e81424353fbe1b790b319fb4a1370ee", "simhash": "1:67fcb5b1431be77a", "word_count": 619 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:34:57.846352+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "WARREN LATHROP, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GERALD L. TYRRELL, Defendant-Appellant." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "JUSTICE STOUDER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant-appellant, Gerald Tyrrell, appeals from the trial court\u2019s judgment awarding plaintiff-appellee, Warren Lathrop, $7,000 plus costs. Upon payment of the judgment and costs, Lathrop was ordered to return the purchased items to Tyrrell. For the following reasons, we affirm this decision.\nThe facts of this case may be briefly summarized as follows. Lathrop purchased a complete satellite receiving system from Tyrrell for $7,000. During the 11-month period following this sale and installation the system did not properly function for various reasons. After repeated attempts by Tyrrell to cure the defects in the system, Lathrop finally sent Tyrrell a letter revoking acceptance of the system and filed suit.\nOn appeal, we are asked to determine whether the trial court\u2019s decision is against the manifest weight of the evidence. Tyrrell contends there was no breach of any warranty given, and the alleged nonconformity of the satellite receiving system did not substantially impair its value. Lathrop urges violation of an express warranty and of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. While we believe there is evidence supporting the claim of violation of each of the warranties, we will only discuss the latter.\nSection 2 \u2014 315 of the Illinois Commercial Code states:\n\u201cWhere 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\u2019s 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.\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 26, par. 2-315.)\nBreach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose gives rise to a right to revoke acceptance under the provisions of section 2 \u2014 608 of the Code. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1981, ch. 26, par. 2 \u2014 608.) In order for the right to revoke acceptance to arise, defects must exist as \u201csubstantially impair the value\u201d of the item purchased. (Stamm v. Wilder Travel Trailers (1976), 44 Ill. App. 3d 530, 358 N.E.2d 382.) Once a person\u2019s faith is shaken in a major investment, the item not only loses its real value in the buyer\u2019s eyes, but also becomes an artide whose integrity has been substantially impaired and whose operation is fraught with apprehension. Overland Bond & Investment Corp. v. Howard (1972), 9 Ill. App. 3d 348, 292 N.E.2d 168.\nIn the present case, Tyrrell knew of the particular purpose for which the system was required by Lathrop. Knowing this, and knowing that Lathrop was relying on Tyrrell\u2019s skill and judgment in selecting a suitable satellite receiving system for him, an implied warranty arose as a matter of law. The evidence discloses that the system was operational for only 44 days during a 340-day period prior to Lathrop\u2019s revocation of his acceptance of the system. The defective condition of this system for such a sustained period of time discloses a breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose. Furthermore, from the facts of this case, it is not against the manifest weight of the evidence to find that Lathrop\u2019s faith in the satellite receiving system was shaken and that its value to him was substantially impaired. Lathrop, therefore, properly revoked his acceptance of the system. For these reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Rock Island is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nHEIPLE and SCOTT, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "JUSTICE STOUDER" } ], "attorneys": [ "Bernard C. Gillman, of Rock Island, for appellant.", "James E. Whitmire, Jr., of McGehee, Boling, Whitmire & Olson, Ltd., of Silvis, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "WARREN LATHROP, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GERALD L. TYRRELL, Defendant-Appellant.\nThird District\nNo. 3\u201484\u20140313\nOpinion filed November 30, 1984.\nBernard C. Gillman, of Rock Island, for appellant.\nJames E. Whitmire, Jr., of McGehee, Boling, Whitmire & Olson, Ltd., of Silvis, for appellee." }, "file_name": "1067-01", "first_page_order": 1089, "last_page_order": 1091 }