Plaintiff filed a small claims action asserting claims of fraud in connection with his purchase of a used automobile from the defendants. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss and plaintiff appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint because “as is” is not a defense to fraud and that the trial court made improper credibility determinations. The appellate court affirmed, explaining that while the plaintiff was correct that the contractual phrase “as is” is not a defense to fraud and should not have a conclusive effect on the complaint, the trial court’s dismissal was proper because plaintiff failed to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted as to both plaintiff’s fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment claims. (FITZGERALD SMITH and LAVIN, concurring)
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Common Law Fraud