Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
The Consumer Fraud and Deceptive deception, fraud, false pretense, false prom-
Business PracticesAct ("theAct") prohibits mis- ise, misrepresentation or the concealment,
leading and deceptive business practices in con- suppression or omission of any material
nection with any trade or business.' The fact, with intent that others rely upon the
legislature's purpose was to help consumers ob- concealment, suppression or omission of
tain remedies against businesses for deceptive such material fact, or the use or employ-
sales practices.' The legislature accomplishes its ment of any practice described in Section 2
purpose through the Act by eliminating the re- of the 'Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices
quirement that the plaintiff must prove a defen- Act,' approved August 5, 1965, in the con-
dant intended to defraud. Additionally, prevail- duct of any trade or commerce are hereby
ing plaintiffs are allowed to recover attorney's declared unlawful whether any person has
fees. 3 Some courts hold that consumers need not in fact been misled, deceived or damaged
5
show reliance to prevail under the Act; however, thereby.
other courts disagree. This article explores the This section requires proof of reliance
split in the courts and explains how the Illinois where a plaintiff relies on an omission or con-
Supreme Court's decision in Martin v. Heinold cealment of a material fact. 6 However, the sec-
Commodities4 has implied a tentative resolution tion contains no such requirement for misrepre-
to the debate. sentation cases.
Several courts listed the elements of a
I. The Reliance Debate misrepresentation claim as follows:
To recover under the Act, a plaintiff must
Illinois courts are sharply divided over prove that: (1) a statement by the seller;
whether proof of reliance is necessary to state a (2) of an existing or future material fact;
claim under the Act. Two types of claims exist (3) that was untrue, without regard to
under the Act: a claim based upon a misrepre- defendant's knowledge or lack thereof of
sentation and a claim based upon an omission of
a material fact. The Act treats each type of claim
differently: Edward X. Clinton, Jr.is an associ-
Unfair methods of competition and unfair ate with Katten, Muchin & Zavis in
or deceptive acts or practices, including but Chicago,Illinois.
not limited to the use or employment of any
E N D N 0 T E S
815 ILL. CoMP. STAT. ANN. § 505/1-12 (West 1992 & Supp. 4 643 N.E.2d 734 (I11.1994).
1996).
1 815 ILL. COMP. STAT. ANN. § 505/2 (West 1992 & Supp. 1996).
2 See, e.g., Eki v. Knecht, 585 N.E.2d 156, 163 (I1l.App. 2d Dist.
6 See, e.g., Totz v. Continental Du PageAcura, 602 N.E.2d 1374,
1991).
1382 (I11.App. 2d Dist. 1992).
See Ciampi v. Ogden Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 634 N.E.2d 448,
460 (I11.App. 2d Dist. 1994). Malooley v. Alice, 621 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ill. App. 3d Dist.
1993) (quoting Roche v.Fireside Chrysler-Plymouth, Mazda,