Notice that the defendant did not move to dismiss Count I of the Complaint, a cause of action alleging breach of contract.  Thus, dismissal of Count II does not end the lawsuit, which will proceed on Count I of the Complaint unless the parties settle.  

     Count II alleged breach of warranty.  A warranty is one type of promise (and we study UCC warranties carefully in Problem.Dispute.Laptop computer).   For example, new cars are accompanied by a warranty against (i.e. promise that there won't be) defects in material or workmanship for a stated period of time.  Thus, a breach of warranty is simply one example of a breach of contract.  Why then does plaintiff's Count I for breach of contract remain while its Count II for breach of warranty was dismissed?  The answer is that plaintiff still may rely on the common law of contract or other statutes regarding contract for a remedy for the alleged defective refinishing but, because the court finds that this was not a transaction in goods, it may not rely on any specialized rules in Article 2 regarding breach of warranty. 

     One cannot tell from the opinion whether the specialized rules in Article 2 would have been more beneficial to the plaintiff than the common law rules of contract.   For example, the statute of limitations for bringing suit under Article 2 might be longer than the general Illinois statute of limitations for breach of contract.  But that difference wouldn't have mattered in this case because the plaintiff sued very quickly.  A more likely possibility is that under Article 2 the plaintiff might have been able to prove the breach of an implied warranty of merchantability whereas under the common law of contract the plaintiff might have to prove breach of an express promise by the defendant that guaranteed the results of the refinishing process. 

     If Article 2 didn't provide any specialized rules helpful to the plaintiff, why would the defendant care about Count II and spend the money to have its lawyers file a motion to dismiss Count II?   Sometimes, unfortunately, the answer is that the lawyers (with the client's concurrence) simply want to delay the progress of the lawsuit in any way possible, hoping that consistent "hardball" may leverage an earlier or better settlement.   In your Civil Procedure course you will study rules designed to limit or restrict actions taken simply for the purpose of delay and to consider whether those rules are appropriate or effective.