In New Spin Sports, LLC v. Arrow Electronics, Inc., No. 18-1666 (December 3, 2018) (N.D. Ill., E. Div. Affirmed and reversed in part and remanded), the 7th Circuit revived a suit over by a sports electronics company alleging its supplier sold it defective parts, saying that while five of the seven claims were rightfully barred, the fraud claims can proceed. The District Court did not err in dismissing as time-barred plaintiff’s breach of contract claims alleging that defendant provided defective components to build plaintiff’s “SwingSmart” devices, where instant contract was primarily contract for sale of goods that was subject to 4-year limitation period as set forth in UCC. Fact that Illinois had 10-year limitation period for breach of written contracts, that agreement stated no quantity, price or delivery date of goods to be produced, or that there were no goods in existence at time parties signed agreement did not require different result. Moreover, the contract claims, which included breach of good faith and fair dealing and breach of warranty, were untimely, since plaintiff waited more than four years beyond tender of defective components to file instant lawsuit. However, the trial court erred in dismissing on timeliness grounds plaintiff’s tort claims for fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation, since: (1) said claims did not merely re-state contract claims, but rather asserted different duty to perform in that plaintiff alleged that defendant misrepresented that it had requisite skills to perform on instant contract; and (2) applicable limitations period for fraud is five years, which rendered fraud claims timely.
