Our Client, Mr$.$ Merrill Simms, is being sued by Tom Kelly for breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose in the lawsuit that has been filed as Kelly v$.$ Simms. Mr$.$ Sims placed an ad in a newspaper, The Daily Post, offering to sell a Ryder $1000$ riding lawn mower for $$1,000\mathrm{.}00.$ Mr$.$ Kelly responded to the ad and came to Mr$.$ Simms' house to purchase the mower. Mr$.$ Kelly told Mr$.$ Simms that he needed a good riding mower because he had $2(1)/(2)$ acres to be mowed once a week. Mr$.$ Simms responded that, although he had never needed to mow more than an acre, the mower had always done a good jab for him. After discussing the terms, Mr$.$ Kelly purchases the mower for $$900\mathrm{.}00$One week later, Mr$.$ Kelly called Mr$.$ Simms and informed him that the mower was too small and underpowered for his needs, and he wanted his money back. Mr$.$ Simms refused and Mr$.$ Kelly has filed suit in Small Claims Court claiming breach of an Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose.Mr$.$ Simms' only experience with riding mowers is based on his use of the Ryder $1000.$ He does not have any special expertise concerning riding mowers, nor does he routinely sell them.At this point, we do not know if Mr$.$ Simms has any documentation to indicate whether the terms of the sale were reduced to writing.