Vanessa Mathews v. REV Recreation Group, Inc., 931 F.3d 619

Vanessa and Randy Mathews bought a Holiday Rambler Presidential RV on May 7, 2014; it came with a manufacturer limited warranty (express and implied) lasting one year and requiring notice to REV or an authorized dealer within five days of discovering a defect.
The RV had numerous defects soon after purchase (electrical issues, refrigerator, leveling system, shower leak, TV/DVD problems, slide cable), and the Mathews sought repairs from the dealer and from REV-authorized repairers; some repairs occurred without REV being notified.
REV repaired the RV at its factory store on at least two occasions and issued a ‘‘goodwill’’ extended warranty for workmanship (explicitly excluding extension of the limited warranty); REV provided a copy of the limited warranty in May 2015.
After REV returned the RV in June 2015, the Mathews did not permit further authorized repairs; their attorney sent a breach-of-warranty letter in July 2015 and they later sued alleging breaches of express and implied warranties, and claims under the Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act and Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act.
The district court granted summary judgment for REV, finding REV was not given a reasonable opportunity to cure, the warranty limitations were not unconscionable, and therefore the statutory claims failed; the Mathews appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Breach of express warranty — did REV fail to honor the warranty?	Mathews: warranty failed its essential purpose because defects persisted and REV effectively didn’t cure.	REV: it repaired defects presented and was not given a reasonable opportunity to cure after June 2015.	Held: No breach; buyer did not give REV a reasonable opportunity to cure, so remedy did not fail its essential purpose.
Breach of implied warranty of merchantability	Mathews: RV was not merchantable at sale.	REV: same cure-opportunity defense; warranty procedures apply.	Held: No breach; failure to permit reasonable cure is fatal to claim.
Unconscionability of warranty terms (no hard copy at sale; one-year limitation)	Mathews: terms unconscionable because no hard copy given and one-year limit too short for latent defects.	REV: Mathews knew and used the warranty; one-year limit is a bargained term and not per se unconscionable.	Held: Terms not unconscionable; Mathews relied on warranty benefits and latent-defect risk does not alone make term unconscionable.
Statutory claims under IDCSA and Magnuson–Moss	Mathews: statutory violations flow from warranty breaches and deceptive practices.	REV: statutory claims fail if warranty claims fail.	Held: Statutory claims fail because plaintiffs did not establish warranty breaches or unconscionability.

Peltz Const. Co. v. Dunham, 436 N.E.2d 892 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982) (elements for breach of warranty under Indiana law)
Perry v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., 814 N.E.2d 634 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (discussing warranty remedies and buyer obligations)
Anderson v. Gulf Stream Coach, Inc., 662 F.3d 775 (7th Cir. 2011) (buyer must give seller reasonable opportunity to cure when warranty terms impose that requirement)
Aamco Transmissions v. Air Sys., Inc., 459 N.E.2d 1215 (Ind. Ct. App. 1984) (requiring opportunity to cure under warranty terms)
General Motors Corp. v. Sheets, 818 N.E.2d 49 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (Lemon Law context: reasonable number of repair attempts defined)
Weaver v. Am. Oil Co., 276 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 1971) (standard for unconscionability of contracts)
United States v. Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955 (7th Cir. 1991) (failure to develop argument forfeits the claim)
United States v. Giovannetti, 919 F.2d 1223 (7th Cir. 1990) (litigant who fails to support a point with authority forfeits it)