Felley v. Singleton
Illinois Appellate Court
705 N.E.2d 930 (1999)
- Written by Robert Cane, JD
Facts
Brian Felley (plaintiff) purchased a used 1991 Ford Taurus from Thomas and Cheryl Singleton (defendants) for $5,800. When Felley test drove the car and discussed its condition with the Singletons, the Singletons told Felley that the car was in good shape and in good mechanical condition. They informed Felley that the car was well maintained and that they knew of only two minor issues, which they disclosed. Two days after his purchase, Felley discovered a problem with the car’s clutch. Soon after, the clutch failed completely. Felley replaced the clutch at a cost of about $900. The car also developed serious brake problems within the first month that Felley owned it. Two repairs to the brakes cost about $1,400 total. Felley instituted a small-claims action against the Singletons. Felley’s mechanic testified as an expert witness. The mechanic testified that the clutch and brake problems probably existed at the time of Felley’s purchase. The Singletons testified and acknowledged that they told Felley that the car was in good mechanical shape or condition. The trial court found that the Singletons’ statements about the condition of the car constituted an express warranty and found in favor of Felley, awarding him about $2,300. The Singletons appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Bowman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.