1. The planter was model year 2014 or later and number  1770NT or 1775NT; and/or   106.  John Deere, either directly and/or through its agents, represented to the world,  Plaintiff, and class members that the planters provided even distribution and emergence.  107.  The planters were not capable of providing even distribution and emergence in the  condition in which they were delivered to Plaintiff and class members.  108.  John Deere knew these representations were false or acted with reckless disregard  to the truth with respect to the planters.  109.  John Deere made these representations either directly or through its agents for the  purpose of increasing sales and convincing Plaintiff and class members to purchase the planters  despite the planters not possessing the very quality they were advertised to have.  110.  Plaintiff and class members justifiably relied upon John Deere’s representations in  purchasing and/or leasing the planters.  111.  Because Plaintiff and class members relied upon the representations of John  Deere and/or its agents, Plaintiff and class members bought and/or leased planters that they  would not have purchased or leased but for the misrepresentation.  112.  Because Plaintiff and class members relied upon the representations of John  Deere and/or its agents, Plaintiff and class members used the planters to seed their crops. The  undisclosed defect caused Plaintiff and class members to suffer financial harm in the form of  wasted fertilizer and decreased yield.  113.  Plaintiff’s and class members’ purchases and/or leases of the planters from John  Deere and/or its agents constitute contracts.  22  114.  A basis of the bargain was the representation that the planters provide even  distribution and emergence.  115.  Because the planters do not provide even distribution and emergence, John Deere  has committed a material breach of the contract with Plaintiff and each class member.  116.  Plaintiff and class members have substantially complied with all obligations under  the contracts.  117.  Plaintiff and class members have suffered damages in the diminished value of  their planters, in the waste of fertilizer, and in the loss of crop yield.  118.  The damages of Plaintiff and class members are the reasonably foreseeable  damages of purchasers of the planters.  119.  Implied into the contract for the purchase and/or lease of the planters between  John Deere and Plaintiff and class members is the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  120.  At all relevant times, John Deere knew or should have known that the planters did  not conform to the marketing and representations made by John Deere and/or its agents.  121.  John Deere stood silent instead of informing Plaintiff and class members of the  defective condition of the planters.  122.  Plaintiff and class members relied upon John Deere’s silence in purchasing and  using the planters.  123.  John Deere knew or should have known Plaintiff and class members would not  discover the defect prior to using the planters to seed their crops.  124.  John Deere breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by remaining  silent when it had material knowledge of the defective condition of the planters.  23  125.  Because John Deere stood silent, Plaintiff and class members suffered damages.  12.   Plaintiff Craig Armstrong is an Indiana farmer. Armstrong had used John Deere  planters for years without substantial problems. In 2014, however, Armstrong purchased a John  Deere 1770NT planter for use on approximately 2,740 acres of land for the purpose of growing  corn.   126.  John Deere concealed and suppressed material facts concerning the quality and  performance capabilities of its planters.  127.  John Deere concealed and suppressed material facts concerning the defects  plaguing the planters, and John Deere valued cost-cutting over the functionality of its planters.  128.  John Deere did so in order to boost confidence in its planters and to falsely assure  purchasers and lessees that its planters functioned in accordance with the marketing and  representations by John Deere and/or its agents. The false representations were material to  Plaintiff and class members because the representations played a significant role in the value of  the vehicles.   129.  John Deere had a duty to disclose the defects in its planters because they were  known and/or accessible only to John Deere; John Deere had superior knowledge and access to  the facts; and John Deere knew or should have known the facts were not known to, or reasonably  discoverable, by Plaintiff and class members.  130.  John Deere also had a duty to disclose because it made many general affirmative  representations about the quality of the planters, as set forth above, which were misleading,  deceptive, and incomplete without the disclosure of the additional facts set forth above regarding  the actual defects in its planters. Having volunteered to provide information to Plaintiff and the  class members, John Deere had the duty to disclose not just the partial truth, but the entire truth.  These omitted and concealed facts were material because they directly impact the value of the  planters purchased or leased by Plaintiff and class members. Whether a manufacturer’s products  are reliable are material concerns to a consumer.  24  131.  John Deere actively concealed and/or suppressed these material facts, in whole or  in part, to protect its profits and avoid recalls that would hurt the brand’s image and cost John  Deere money, and it did so at the expense of Plaintiff and the class members.  132.   On information and belief, John Deere has still not made full and adequate  disclosure and continues to defraud Plaintiff and class members and conceal material information  regarding defects that exist in the planters.  133.  Plaintiff and class members were unaware of these omitted material facts and  would not have acted as they did if they had known of the concealed and/or suppressed facts, in  that they would not have purchased and/or leased the planters; and/or would have fixed the  defect prior to using the product to their detriment in planting their crops; and/or not paid the  same price elevated by the representation of performance; and/or would have taken other  affirmative steps. Plaintiff’s and class members’ actions were justified. John Deere was in  exclusive control of the material facts and such facts were not known to the public, Plaintiff, or  class members.  134.  Because of the concealment and/or suppression of the facts, Plaintiff and class  members sustained damage because they own planters that diminished in value as a result of  John Deere’s concealment of, and failure to timely disclose, the defects. Plaintiff and class  members also sustained damages because they used the planters to plant crops causing a waste in  fertilizer and a decrease in crop yield.   135.  Had they been aware of the concealed defects that existed in the planters, Plaintiff  and class members either would have paid less for their planters and/or would not have  purchased and/or leased them at all; and no class members, regardless of time of purchase and/or  lease, would have used the planters in their defective condition to plant their crops.  25  136.  Accordingly, John Deere is liable to Plaintiff and class members for damages in  an amount to be proven at trial.  137.  John Deere’s acts were done maliciously, oppressively, deliberately, with intent to  defraud, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s and class members’ rights and well-being to  enrich John Deere. John Deere’s conduct warrants an assessment of punitive damages in an  amount sufficient to deter such conduct in the future, which amount is to be determined  according to proof.   13.  The John Deere planters at issue not only seed the soil but also distribute liquid  fertilizer at the time of such planting to increase yield.   138.  John Deere has received and retained a benefit from Plaintiff and inequity has  resulted.  139.  John Deere has benefitted from selling and/or leasing the planters whose value  was artificially inflated by John Deere’s concealment of the defects described throughout this  Complaint, and Plaintiff and class members have overpaid for the planters and been forced to  pay other costs.   140.  Plaintiff and class members, therefore, conferred a benefit on John Deere.   141.  It is inequitable for John Deere to retain these benefits.  142.  Plaintiff and class members were not aware of the true facts about the planters,  and did not benefit from John Deere’s conduct.   143.  John Deere knowingly accepted the benefits of its unjust conduct.  144.  As a result of John Deere’s conduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should  be disgorged, in an amount to be proven at trial.   26  14.  Modern farming is a complex scientific industry that requires precise  measurements and calculations to maximize production and yield. Key components in this  process, as recognized by John Deere in its marketing materials for its planters, are: “1)  Achieving even emergence; 2) Achieving the correct plant population; 3) Achieving uniform  4  spacing; and 4) Planting within the optimum window.” John Deere marketing materials have  called these “the four key agronomic principles of planting.”   15.  John Deere has marketed its planters as “[t]he only planter on the market that can  offer even emergence, correct population, uniform spacing, and speed to get the most production  within the optimum window.”   16.  To Armstrong, like any farmer, even distribution and emergence is of the utmost  importance. The amount of fertilizer used at the time of seed planting is calculated to provide the  maximum yield. Consequently, where there is uneven distribution of fertilizer, the yield is  impacted. If a crop row is deprived of the optimal amount of fertilizer, it will not reach its  optimal yield. Where a row is over fertilized it will not increase the yield in that row and may  actually cause a decrease in production in that specific row. Thus, where the distribution of  fertilizer is uneven, the yield will invariably suffer and be inconsistent across rows.   17.  Armstrong purchased the John Deere 1770NT planter because John Deere  promised in marketing materials and in documents that were part of the purchase contract that it  would provide even distribution and emergence. Historically, these representations had been  more or less accurate in Armstrong’s experience.   18.  The planters use hoses to move the liquid fertilizer across the planter to ultimately  be distributed in the numerous planting rows. Historically, each of the many fertilizer  distribution nozzles on John Deere planters were connected to the fertilizer reservoir by hoses of  equal lengths, despite those nozzles being varying distances from the reservoir. These hoses of  equal lengths ensured that pressure in the lines was even, and that distribution of fertilizer to  each nozzle was identical, which ultimately promoted even emergence.   5   19.  Starting with its 2014 model planters, John Deere changed that design by  connecting fertilizer nozzles to the reservoir with hoses of varying lengths depending on the  nozzles’ distance from the reservoir.    2. The planter was model year 2014 or later and used fertilizer  hoses of varying lengths to connect the distribution nozzles  to  the  fertilizer  reservoir;  and/or   20.  John Deere did not notify customers of the changes and used the same marketing  that promised and emphasized even distribution and emergence.   21.  The John Deere 1770NT planter Armstrong purchased was among the planters  containing these changes. The varying hose lengths resulted in uneven fertilizer distribution,  such that the relative amount of fertilizer delivered to each nozzle on the planter varied in direct  proportion to on its distance from the reservoir, with the most fertilizer delivered to the nozzles  closest to the reservoir and least to those furthest away.    22.  The net result of this defect was uneven fertilizer distribution, uneven emergence  and growth of crops, and, ultimately, decreased overall crop yield and profits.    23.  Armstrong discovered the uneven fertilizer distribution problem on and after  April 20, 2014, only after he had planted approximately 2,740 acres of corn crops. Even if  Armstrong had discovered the serious design flaw prior to planting his crops, the economic  realities of farming deprived him and any similarly situated person from acquiring a different  planter. As John Deere’s marketing materials, discussed above, recognize that the science of  farming permits narrow windows for seeding, necessitating use of even defective equipment to  meet the tight window.   24.  Once Armstrong began using the planter on and after April 20, 2014, he  discovered the problem and brought the defect to the attention of his John Deere dealer and to  John Deere itself. John Deere representatives examined Plaintiff’s planter and conducted  numerous empirical tests on the planter. The results of those tests confirmed what Plaintiff  6  suspected: that the planter failed to evenly distribute fertilizer to the many nozzles, and that  fertilizer distribution decreased in direct proportion to the length of the hose connecting each  nozzle to the fertilizer reservoir.    25.  Despite its confirmation of the fertilizer distribution problem, and its knowledge  that the planter did not conform to its express representations, John Deere did not fix the  problem, offer to compensate Plaintiff for his wasted fertilizer and reduced crop yield, or  otherwise take any corrective action.    26.  Armstrong is not alone. Each and every farmer in the proposed class who used  planters with uneven hose lengths or that otherwise distributed fertilizer unevenly would  necessarily have uneven fertilizer distribution when planting, which necessarily would have  caused uneven emergence, decreased crop yield, and decreased profits.  27.  Plaintiff brings this case pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure on his own behalf and on behalf of the proposed Class, defined as:  All persons or entities domiciled or residing in the United States  who purchased or leased a new planter manufactured by Deere &  Company that meet one or more of the following criteria:   28.  The Class is comprised of thousands of purchasers and lessees of John Deere  planters. Although the exact number of class members is presently unknown, the number and  identity of class members can be readily determined through John Deere’s records.    29.  The disposition of the numerous claims of these class members in a single class  action will provide substantial benefits to all parties and to the Court.   3. The planter otherwise did not evenly distribute fertilizer  among each of the fertilizer distribution nozzles.  7   30.  Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class,  so that final injunctive relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.   31.  There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact  involved affecting the class members. The questions of law and fact common to the Class  predominate over questions affecting only individual class members, and include without  limitation the following:  A.  Whether the John Deere planters were inherently and permanently  defective, due to uneven fertilizer distribution and crop emergence;  B.  Whether John Deere planters failed to perform in a manner consistent with  Defendant’s marketing and warranties, and with the Plaintiff’s and class members’  reasonable expectations;  C.  Whether and when John Deere knew of the defects in the design of its  planters;  D.  Whether the design of John Deere planters constitutes a design defect;  E.  Whether John Deere knew or should have known of these defects prior to  selling planters to Plaintiff and the class members;  F.  Whether John Deere had a duty to Plaintiff and the class members to  disclose the defective nature of its planters;  8  G.  Whether the facts concealed and/or otherwise not disclosed by John Deere  to Plaintiff and the class members are material facts;  H.  Whether John Deere knew or should have known that, due to the defects,  the planters were not suitable for the purposes for which they were intended to be used,  and otherwise were not as warranted and represented;  I.  Whether the planters were not as advertised and/or promoted by John  Deere and its agents;  J.  Whether John Deere expressly warranted to original purchasers and  lessees of the planters that it would repair, replace, or adjust all items on those planters  that were defective in material, workmanship, or factory preparation;  K.  Whether John Deere expressly warranted to original purchasers and  lessees of the planters that the planters would evenly distribute fertilizer;  L.  Whether John Deere breached its express warranties because it was unable  or unwilling to successfully repair or otherwise remedy the defects with the planters  purchased or leased by Plaintiff and class members;  M.  Whether John Deere breached its express warranties because Plaintiff and  class members have been deprived of the value of the bargain;  N.  Whether John Deere breached its express warranties by selling and/or  leasing planters that did not evenly distribute fertilizer;  O.  Whether John Deere impliedly warranted to original purchasers and  lessees of the planters that those planters were merchantable and/or fit for a particular  purpose;  9  P.  Whether John Deere breached its implied warranties of merchantability by  selling Plaintiff and class members planters with inherent defects;   Q.  Whether Plaintiff and class members are entitled to compensatory  damages for the diminution in the fair market value of their planters as a result of the  common defect described herein, and the amount of such damages;  R.  Whether Plaintiff and class members are entitled to compensatory  damages for the loss in crop yield and the waste of fertilizer as a result of the common  defect described herein, and the amount of such damages;  S.  Whether John Deere should be required to compensate Plaintiff and class  members for the cost of replacing the defective hoses and for otherwise correcting the  defects, and the amount of such compensation;   T.  Whether Plaintiff and the class members are entitled to injunctive relief to  remedy the defects; and   U.  Whether John Deere should be declared financially responsible for  notifying all class members of the defective nature of its planters.   32.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class. Plaintiff and class  members have similarly suffered harm arising from John Deere’s legal violations as identified in  causes of action enumerated and set forth below.    33.  Plaintiff’s and class members’ claims flow, in each instance, from a common  nucleus of operative facts – John Deere’s legal violations as identified in causes of action  enumerated and set forth below.   10   34.  Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because his interests do not  conflict with and are not antagonistic to the interests of the class members he seeks to represent.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class.   35.  Plaintiff has retained competent and experienced counsel.   36.  Plaintiff and class members have all suffered and will continue to suffer  substantial harm and damages due to John Deere’s conduct. A class action is superior to other  methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the subject controversy. Absent a class action,  most class members likely will find the cost of litigating their individual claims to be prohibitive,  and will have no effective remedy at all. Absent a class action, class members will continue to  sustain damages, and John Deere’s misconduct will proceed without remedy.    37.  The class treatment of common questions of law and fact is also superior to  multiple individual actions or piecemeal litigation in that it conserves the resources of the courts  and the litigants and promotes consistency and efficiency of adjudication. Additionally, John  Deere has acted, and failed to act, on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff and the Class,  requiring court imposition of uniform relief to insure compatible standards of conduct toward  Plaintiff and the Class.  39.  John Deere knew or should have known that its planters did not evenly distribute  fertilizer.  11   40.  John Deere knew or should have known that the uneven distribution of fertilizer  from its planters resulted in uneven emergence.   41.  John Deere knew that the marketing materials and other express representations  by it or its agents would lead prospective purchasers of its planters, including the Plaintiff and  the class members, to believe that its planters would provide even distribution of fertilizer and to  rely on these representations of even distribution and emergence.   42.  John Deere knew or should have known that its planters were not in conformity  with its marketing materials and other express representations.   43.  John Deere knew or should have known that Plaintiff and the class members  would and did rely on these representations of even distribution and emergence.   44.  John Deere intended that Plaintiff and the class members rely on representations  of even distribution and emergence.   45.  John Deere’s representations that its planters would provide even distribution and  emergence was the basis of the bargain for the sale and/or lease of its planters.   46.  John Deere knew or should have known that its planters were not in conformity  with the representations that it made to the world, Plaintiff, and the class members.   47.  John Deere knew or should have known that its planters were not of the kind,  quality, and/or character that were represented to the world, Plaintiff, and the class members.   48.  John Deere has refused to cure the harm caused by the defect in its planters.   49.  John Deere’s sale and/or lease of its planters in a defective condition not in  conformity with the representations made by it and/or its agents was part of a scheme and/or  artifice perpetrated with the intent to defraud and/or mislead Plaintiff and the class members.  12   50.  Plaintiff and the class members relied upon the representations of John Deere  and/or its agents as outlined above.   51.  Plaintiff and the class members tendered money or other consideration to John  Deere and/or its agents based upon these representations.   52.  John Deere’s marketing and/or representations of the function and quality of its  planters provide it an unfair market advantage over its competitors.   53.  Unless John Deere is prevented from continuing in its deceptive marketing  practices, Plaintiff, class members, competitors, and other market participants will be injured in  the future.   54.  Plaintiff and other members of the class, due to business necessity, must purchase  new planters such as those at issue in this case on an annual basis.   55.  Plaintiff notified John Deere in writing of the defect in the fertilizer delivery  system, and John Deere refused to remedy the situation.    56.  John Deere’s actions violate consumer and market protection statutes of the fifty  states, including, but not limited to, the statutes codified at Ind. Code § 24-5-0.5-1 et seq., Ala.  Code § 8-19-1 et seq., Alaska Stat. § 45.50.471 et seq., Arizona Rev. Stat. § 44-1521 et seq.,  Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-101 et seq., Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq., Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §  17200 et seq., Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq., Col. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-101 et seq., Conn.  Gen. Stat. § 42-110A et seq., 6 Del. Code § 2513 et seq., 6 Del. Code § 2532 et seq., Fla. Stat. §  501.201 et seq., Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-370 et seq., Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-390 et seq., Haw. Rev.  Stat. § 480 et seq., Haw. Rev. Stat. § 481A et seq., Idaho Civ. Code § 48-601 et seq., 815 Ill.  Comp. Stat. 505/1 et seq., 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 295/1A, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 510/1 et seq., 720 Ill.  Comp. Stat. 295/1A, Iowa Code § 714H.1 et seq., Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-623 et seq., Ky. Rev.  13  Stat. § 367.110 et seq., La. Rev. Stat. § 51:1401 et seq., Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. tit. 5 § 205-A et  seq., Md. Code Com. Law § 13-101 et seq., Mass. Gen. L. ch. 93A § 1 et seq., Mich. Comp.  Laws § 445.901 et seq., Minn. Stat. §§ 325F.67 et seq., Minn. Stat. § 325D.43-48 et seq., Minn.  Stat. § 325F.68 et seq., Miss. Code Ann. § 75-24-1 et seq., Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.010 et seq.,  Mont. Code Ann. § 30-14-101 et seq., Neb. Rev. Stat. § 59-1601 et seq., Nev. Rev. Stat. §  598.0903 et seq., N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 358A:1 et seq., N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-1 et seq., N.M.  Stat. Ann. §§ 57-12-1 et seq., N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law §§ 349 & 350, N.C. Gen. Stat. § 74-1.1 et  seq., N.D. Cent. Code § 51-15-02, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.01 et seq., Ohio Rev. Code Ann.  § 4165.01 et seq., Okla. Stat. tit. 15 § 751 et seq., 78 Okla. Stat. Ann. § 51 et seq., Or. Rev. Stat.  §§ 646.605 et seq., 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq., R.I. Gen. Laws § 6-13.1 et seq., S.C. Code Ann. § 39- 5-10 et seq., S.C. Code Ann. § 56-15-10 et seq., S.D. Codified Laws § 37-24-6, Tenn. Code Ann.  § 47-18-101 et seq., Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 17.41 et seq., Utah Code Ann. § 13-11-1 et seq.,  Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9 § 2451 et seq., Va. Code Ann. 15 §§ 59.1-196 et seq., Rev. Code Wash. Ann.  §§ 19.86.010 et seq., W. Va. Code § 46A-1-101 et seq., Wisc. Stat. § 110.18, and Wyo. Stat. §§  45-12-105 et seq.   57.  The damages suffered by Plaintiff and the class members include, but are not  limited to: the decreased market value of the planters; the decrease yield in crops; the cost to  repair the defect; and the waste of fertilizer.  58.  John Deere is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to planters.    59.  In the course of selling the planters, John Deere expressly warranted in writing  that all parts on the planters are covered by warranty.  14   60.  John Deere breached this express warranty to by failing to repair or replace the  defective hoses and/or other parts of the planters when John Deere knew or should have known  of the defective condition of the planters. John Deere has not repaired or adjusted the planters.   61.  In addition to this warranty, John Deere expressly warranted several attributes,  characteristics, and qualities.    62.  These warranties are only a sampling of the numerous warranties that John Deere  made relating to reliability and operation of the planters. Generally these express warranties  promise superior performance, such as but without limitation: “The only planter on the market  that can offer even emergence, correct population, uniform spacing, and speed to get the  most production within the optimum window.” These warranties were made, inter alia, in  advertisements, in John Deere brochures, its website, and in uniform statements provided by  John Deere to be made by salespeople. These affirmations and promises were part of the basis of  the bargain between the parties.    63.  These additional warranties were also breached because the planters were not  fully operational or reliable, nor did they comply with the warranties expressly made to  purchasers or lessees. John Deere did not provide at the time of sale, and has not provided since  then, planters conforming to these express warranties.   64.  Furthermore, the limited warranty of replacing defective parts fails in its essential  purpose because the contractual remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and class members  whole and because John Deere has failed and/or has refused to adequately provide the promised  remedies within a reasonable time.    65.  Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and class members is not limited to the limited  warranty on parts, and Plaintiff and class members seek all remedies as allowed by law.   15   66.  Also, as alleged in more detail elsewhere in this Complaint, at the time that John  Deere warranted and sold the planters it knew that the planters did not conform to the warranties  and were inherently defective, and John Deere wrongfully and fraudulently misrepresented  and/or concealed material facts regarding its planters. Plaintiff and class members were therefore  induced to purchase the planters under false and/or fraudulent pretenses.   67.  Moreover, many of the damages flowing from planters cannot be resolved  through the limited warranty on parts, as those incidental and consequential damages have  already been suffered due to John Deere’s fraudulent conduct as alleged herein, and due to its  failure and/or continued failure to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any  limitation on Plaintiff’s and class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make Plaintiff and  class members whole.    68.  Finally, due to John Deere’s breach of warranties as set forth herein, Plaintiff and  class members assert as an additional and/or alternative remedy, as set forth in U.C.C. § 2-608,  as adopted by the fifty states, for a revocation of acceptance of the goods, and for a return to  Plaintiff and to class members of the purchase and/or lease price of all planters currently owned  and/or leased.    69.  As a direct and proximate result of John Deere’s breach of express warranties,  Plaintiff and class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.   70.  John Deere was a merchant with respect to the planters within the meaning of  U.C.C. § 2-104(1), as adopted by the fifty states.   16   71.  Under U.C.C. § 2-314, as adopted by the fifty states, a warranty that the planters  were in merchantable condition was implied by law in the transactions when Plaintiff and class  members purchased and/or leased the planters.   72.  The planters, when sold and at all times thereafter, were not merchantable and are  not fit for the ordinary purpose for which the planters are used. Specifically, the unequal length  of hoses and other causes for uneven distribution of fertilizer prevent the planters from meeting  the essential functions of even distribution and emergence.   73.  John Deere was provided notice of these issues by numerous individual letters and  communications sent by Plaintiff, class members and independent John Deere dealers.   74.  As a direct and proximate result of John Deere’s breach of the implied warranty  of merchantability, Plaintiff and class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at  trial.  75.  Plaintiff and class members had no knowledge of the defects described herein,  were unaware of these defects, and reasonably could not have discovered them when they  purchased and/or leased the planters from John Deere and/or its agents. On the other hand, John  Deere was aware of the defects and nonconformities at the time of sale and thereafter.   76.  Acceptance was reasonably induced by the difficulty of discovery of the defects  and nonconformities before acceptance.    77.  There has been no change in the condition of Plaintiff’s and class members’  planters not caused by the defects and nonconformities.    78.  Plaintiff and class members would suffer economic hardship if they returned their  planters but did not receive the return of all payments made by them. Because John Deere would  17  refuse to acknowledge any revocation of acceptance and return immediately any payments made,  Plaintiff and class members have not re-accepted their planters by retaining them.    79.  These defects and nonconformities substantially impaired the value of the planters  to Plaintiff and class members. This impairment stems from two basic sources. First, the planters  fail in their essential purpose because they do not function in the very capacity that they are  marketed as exceeding all other planters in functionality, namely in even distribution and  emergence. Second, the parts warranty has failed its essential purpose because John Deere was  aware of the defect and took no action to prevent Plaintiff or class members from using the  planters in their defective condition, thereby generating damages well in excess of mere  replacement costs.   80.  Plaintiff and class members provided notice of their intent to seek revocation of  acceptance by a class-action lawsuit seeking such relief. In addition, Plaintiff and class members  have requested that John Deere accept return of their planters and return all payments made.  Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the Class hereby demands revocation and tender their planters.    81.  Plaintiff and class members would suffer economic hardship if they returned their  planters but did not receive the return of all payments made by them. Because John Deere is  refusing to acknowledge any revocation of acceptance and return immediately any payments  made, Plaintiff and class members have not re-accepted their planters by retaining them, as they  must continue using them due to the financial burden of securing alternative means for an  uncertain and substantial period of time.    82.  Consequently, Plaintiff and class members are entitled to revoke their  acceptances, receive all payments made to John Deere, and to all incidental and consequential  18  damages, including the costs associated with purchasing properly functioning planters, and all  other damages allowable under law, all in amounts to be proven at trial.   83.  Plaintiff and class members had valid business relationships and reasonable  expectancy of continued business relationships with purchasers of their crops.    84.  John Deere had knowledge of such relationships and/or possessed knowledge of  facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable person to believe that such relationships  existed.    85.  John Deere intentionally or recklessly caused an interference with those business  relationships.   86.  John Deere’s interference was wrongful and illegal because, among other things,  it was accomplished with fraud and was intentional. Additionally, John Deere’s actions  constitute violations consumer and market protection statutes as set forth above.   87.  John Deere’s interference proximately caused damage to Plaintiff and class  members.    88.  Plaintiff and class members are thus entitled to an award of compensatory  damages and prejudgment and post- judgment interest.    89.  John Deere willfully and wantonly subjected the Plaintiff and class members to  probable injury, with an awareness of such impending danger and with heedless indifference of  the consequences. Punitive Damages are therefore warranted.  90.  John Deere as the manufacturer and seller/lessor of the planters had a duty to  inform Plaintiff and class members of known defects in the planters.  19   91.  John Deere marketed and represented the planters as providing even distribution  and emergence despite knowing that the planters did not meet those representations.   92.  Plaintiff and class members relied upon the representations of John Deere and/or  its agents that the planters would provide even distribution and emergence.   93.  Because Plaintiff and class members relied upon the representations of John  Deere and/or its agents, Plaintiff and class members bought and/or leased planters that they  would not have purchased or leased but for the misrepresentation.   94.  Because Plaintiff and class members relied upon the representations of John  Deere and/or its agents, Plaintiff and class members used the planters to seed and fertilize their  crops. The undisclosed defect caused Plaintiff and class members to suffer financial harm in the  form of wasted fertilizer and decreased yield.   95.  John Deere gained an advantage in the form of receiving money and other  consideration from Plaintiff and class members.   96.  John Deere gained an advantage in the marketplace by fraudulently representing  that its planters were “[t]he only planter on the market that can offer even emergence, correct  population, uniform spacing, and speed to get the most production within the optimum  window[,]” when its planters were unable to provide the represented superiority.   97.  Justice requires that John Deere be disgorged of its ill-gotten gains and that  Plaintiff and class members be compensated in full for the damages they have and will have  suffered as a result of John Deere’s fraudulent representations, misrepresentations, and omissions  when it had a duty to speak.  20  98.  John Deere either directly or through its agents represented to the world, Plaintiff,  and class members that the planters provided even distribution and emergence.   99.  The planters were not capable of providing even distribution and emergence in the  condition in which they were delivered to Plaintiff and class members.  100.  John Deere knew these representations were false or acted with reckless disregard  to the truth with respect to the planters.  101.  John Deere made these representations either directly or through its agents for the  purpose of increasing sales and convincing Plaintiff and class members to purchase the planters  despite the planters not possessing the very quality they were advertised to have.  102.  Plaintiff and class members justifiably relied upon John Deere’s representations in  purchasing and/or leasing the planters.  103.  Because Plaintiff and class members relied upon the representations of John  Deere and/or its agents, Plaintiff and class members bought and/or leased planters that they  would not have purchased or leased but for the misrepresentation.  104.  Because Plaintiff and class members relied upon the representations of John  Deere and/or its agents, Plaintiff and class members used the planters to seed their crops. The  undisclosed defect caused Plaintiff and class members to suffer financial harm in the form of  wasted fertilizer and decreased yield.  105.  John Deere’s misrepresentations and omissions were the direct and foreseeable  cause of the injuries to Plaintiff and class members.  21  MARKET PROTECTION STATUTES  