Ads for a Suzuki sport utility vehicle included the following: “Whether you’re on the job, or on the town” vehicle “never lets you down,” “Nothing else comes close to giving you a better run for your money,” that vehicle was “funmobile” with “fun written all over it” and “a million laughs,” that “It won’t spoil the fun knowing that” vehicle “handles differently than any ordinary passenger car,” and that vehicle “has a nifty, go- getter engine” and “all the goodies of 4- wheel drive.” Pictures included with the ads contained photos of off- road use of the Suzuki. This particular Suzuki vehicle that was advertised proved to be a problem for drivers because of a high roll- over risk, especially in off- road use. Owners who were injured in roll-overs or lost value in their vehicles because of the hazard brought suit for breach of express warranty. Could they recover under this theory? Would there be other theories of product liability that might apply? [Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 656 N. E. 2d 170 (1995); Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 675 N. E. 2d 584, 30 UCC Rep. Serv. 2d 709 (Ill. 1997).]