from the Circuit Court of Du Page County, No. 14-AR-707; the
Hon. Brian R. McKillip, Judge, presiding.
M. Feagans and Kristin N. Stone, both of Griffin/Williams
LLP, of Geneva, for appellant.
J. Laraia, of Laraia & Laraia, of Wheaton, for appellee.
PRESIDING JUSTICE SCHOSTOK delivered the judgment of the
court, with opinion. Justices Hutchinson and Burke concurred
in the judgment and opinion.
SCHOSTOK PRESIDING JUSTICE
1 The defendant, Wolf Motors of Naperville, Inc., made a
mistake in advertising one of its cars for sale. The
plaintiff, Carla Burkhart, tried to purchase the car at the
advertised price. After the defendant refused to honor its
advertisement on the ground that the advertised price was an
error, the plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the
defendant's actions constituted breach of contract and
consumer fraud. The trial court granted the defendant's
motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff appeals from that
order. We affirm.
3 On May 5, 2014, the plaintiff filed a two-count complaint
against the defendant, alleging breach of contract and
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act (Act) (815 ILCS 505/2 (West 2014)).
The complaint alleged that on September 23, 2013, the
plaintiff saw that the defendant was advertising online at
www.toyotacertified.com a 2011 Toyota 4Runner for
$19, 991. The plaintiff contacted the defendant and indicated
that she was interested in purchasing the vehicle. After the
plaintiff test-drove the vehicle, she informed the defendant
that she wanted to purchase the vehicle. The defendant's
representative informed her that the price of the vehicle was
$36, 991. The plaintiff responded that she wanted the
advertised price of $19, 991. The defendant's
representative confirmed that the vehicle had been advertised
for $19, 991 but explained that the advertisement was a
mistake. The defendant's manager subsequently offered to
sell the plaintiff the vehicle "at cost"-$35, 000.
The plaintiff refused to purchase the vehicle at that price.
4 The complaint alleged that the parties had a valid and
enforceable contract for the vehicle at the advertised price
of $19, 991 and that the defendant breached the agreement
when it refused to sell the vehicle to the plaintiff at that
price. Alternatively, the complaint alleged that the
defendant committed consumer fraud and injured the plaintiff
when it advertised the vehicle at a price for which it did
not intend to sell. The defendant filed an answer to the
plaintiff's complaint, denying all material allegations.
5 On May 22, 2015, the defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment. The defendant argued that the erroneous
advertisement did not constitute an offer that could be
accepted so as to form a contract. The defendant further
argued that its actions did not constitute consumer fraud
because (1) it did not commit a deceptive act or practice,
(2) it did not intend for the plaintiff to rely on any
deceptive act or practice, and (3) the plaintiff did not
incur any actual damages.
6 In support of its motion for summary judgment, the
defendant submitted the deposition of its Internet director,
Thomas Gregg. Gregg testified that the $19, 991 advertised
price for the subject vehicle was a clerical error and that
the correct price for the subject vehicle was $36, 991. He
explained that the clerical error occurred with the entry of
the subject vehicle into the Dealer Daily system. He
testified that the person who had entered the vehicle into
the Dealer Daily system was not very familiar with the
process and was in training. The person had mistakenly
entered the price of a different vehicle. After Gregg
discovered on September 23, 2013, that the price was
incorrectly displayed, he immediately updated the price in
the dealership DMS system, which then updated the listing on
Dealer Daily. He did not realize that the update in the
system took approximately four days to appear on the
7 The defendant also submitted the deposition of its used-car
sales manager, Bryan Lieser. Lieser testified that, as of
September 24, 2013, the appraised value of the vehicle in
question was between $32, 000 and $33, 000.
8 On July 9, 2015, the plaintiff filed a cross-motion for
summary judgment. The plaintiff argued that she was entitled
to summary judgment because (1) the defendant admitted that
it refused to sell the vehicle to the plaintiff as advertised
and, alternatively, (2) the defendant admitted ...