Paul Priebe v. Autobarn, Limited

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that the fact that plaintiff continued to drive vehicle and drove it more than 30,000 miles negated merchantability claim under Illinois law
• noting the MMWA “does not provide an independent basis for liability; it only provides for federal jurisdiction for some state claims”
• applying the identical Illinois version of Section 2-314 and 28 affirming summary judgment for the defendant because the plaintiff continued to drive the allegedly defective vehicle for over 30,000 miles
• affirming dismissal of an Illinois implied warranty claim when Plaintiff claimed the car was “dangerous to drive” but “his actions belie[d]” that allegation because he continued to drive the car
• service contract sold by dealer did not prevent dealer from disclaiming implied warranties because the dealer was not bound to repair the car
• “In most cases under the ICFA, including this one, the seller’s knowledge or ignorance about the falsity of its representations is irrelevant.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).