Tag: car dealership

Statute of Frauds’ ‘Goods Over $500’ Section Dooms Car Buyer’s Oral Contract Claim (IL First Dist.)

I’ve written here before on the Statute of Frauds (SOF) and how it requires certain contracts to be in writing to be enforceable.  I’ve also championed “MYLEGS” as a useful mnemonic device for dissecting a SOF issue.

M stands for ‘Marriage’ (contracts in consideration of marriage), Y for ‘Year’ (contracts that can’t be performed within the space of a year must be in writing), L for ‘Land’ (contracts for sale of interest in land), E for ‘Executorship’ (promises by a executor to pay a decedent’s creditor have to be in writing), G is for ‘Goods’ (contracts to sell goods over $500) and S for ‘Surety’ (a promise to pay another’s debt requires a writing).

The First District recently affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of a breach of contract based on the Uniform Commercial Code’s (UCC) SOF provision governing the sale of goods for over $500 (the “G” in the above MYLEGS scheme).

The plaintiff in Isenbergh v. South Chicago Nissan, 2016 IL App(1st) 153510 went to a car dealer defendant to buy a new Nissan Versa (Versa 1) with specific features (manual transmission, anti-lock brakes, etc.).  When told the requested car wasn’t in stock, the plaintiff opted to rent a used car temporarily until the requested car was available.  But instead of renting a used car, the Plaintiff alleged the dealership convinced him to enter into a verbal “Return Agreement” for a substitute Versa (Versa 2). 

Under the Return Agreement, the dealership promised to sell the plaintiff Versa 2 – which didn’t have plaintiff’s desired features – and then buy it back from Plaintiff when Versa 1 was in stock.  According to Plaintiff, the Return Agreement contemplated Plaintiff’s total payments on Versa 2 would equal only two months of sales contract installment payments.

Plaintiff claimed the dealership refused to honor the Return Agreement and Plaintiff was stuck making monthly payments on Versa 2 (a car he never wanted to begin with) that will eventually eclipse $28,000.  The trial court granted defendant’s Section 2-619 motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s breach of contract action based on the SOF.

Held: Affirmed.

Reasons:

The SOF requires that a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more be in writing to be enforceable. 810 ILCS 5/2-201.  A “contract for sale” includes both a present sale of goods as well as a contract to sell goods in the future.  A “sale” is the passing of title from seller to buyer for a price. 810 ILCS 5/2-106, 103.  “Goods” under the UCC are all things “movable” at the time of identification to the contract for sale. 810 ILCS 5/2-105.

The Return Agreement’s subject matter, a car, clearly met the UCC’s definitions of “goods” and the substance of the Return Agreement was a transaction for the sale of goods.  (The dealership promised to buy back Versa 2 from the Plaintiff once Versa 1 (the car Plaintiff wanted all along) became available.

Since Versa 2’s sale price was over $26,000 and plaintiff’s two payments under the Versa 2 purchase contract exceeded $1,100, Versa 2 easily met the SOF’s $500 threshold. Because of this, the Court found that the SOF defeated plaintiff’s claim for breach of an oral agreement to buy and sell a car selling for well over $500.

Afterwords:

This case presents a straightforward application of the SOF section governing the sale of goods that retail for at least $500.  Clearly, a motor vehicle is a movable “good” under the UCC and will almost always meet the $500 threshold by definition.

The case also makes clear that even if the contract contemplates a future sale and purchase (as opposed to a present one), the UCC still governs since the statute’s definition of sales contract explicitly speaks to contracts to sell goods in the future.

Finally, the case is a cautionary tale for car buyers and sellers alike as it shows that oral promises likely will not be enforced unless reduced to writing.

LOI From Hell (?) – It’s Too Illusory For Car Dealership Manager to Enforce – IL 1st Dist.

A complicated Letter of Intent (LOI) involving parties to a planned car sales venture lies at the heart of Dicosola v. Ryan, 2015 IL App(1st) 150007, a case that addresses the level of consideration required to support a written contract in Illinois.

The plaintiff alleged that under the LOI, the defendant was to invest $1M with the plaintiff who would, along with her business partner, use those funds to establish and run the dealership.  In return for her investment, the defendant would get a 10% share of the business.  The LOI also called for the defendant to establish a 401(k) account for the benefit of the parties. 

Decried as a “drafting nightmare” by the court for its chaotic structure, the LOI was silent on the timing: it didn’t say when the dealership would open, how plaintiff would utilize defendant’s funds or even what the plaintiff’s and her partner’s roles were once the dealership went live.

When the defendant pulled out of the deal, the plaintiff sued for breach of contract and specific performance.  The trial court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and the plaintiff appealed.

Held: Dismissal affirmed

Reasons/Rules:

An LOI, like any other contract, must show offer, acceptance, consideration as well as definite and certain terms.

Consideration means a bargained-for exchange of promises or performances and can consist of a promise, an act or a forbearance. Consideration requires one party getting and the other giving something of value.  Otherwise, it’s an illusory promise.  A promise is illusory where the promisor isn’t really promising to do anything or where his promised performance is optional.

Contractual performance will deemed optional (and illusory) where there is no fixed time or duration for the contemplated services or where one parties obligations are terminable at will.

Here, the plaintiff’s promise was illusory since the LOI didn’t specify when she would perform general manager services for the inchoate dealership. Since the LOI lacked a specific start and end date, the Court held the LOI was too indefinite to be enforced.  The lack of clarity on the timing question led the court to conclude there was no consideration to support the plaintiff’s breach of contract claims. (¶¶ 18-20)

Afterwords:

1 – Parties should craft their business agreements with enough specifics for it to be enforced. By only providing aspirational language (“I will do this” or “I plan to do this”) with no specific timing requirements, a contracting party risks a contract being deemed illusory and unenforceable.

2 – Where one party to a contract’s obligations are to occur in the future, the contract language should provide an end date or duration for those services.

BMW Dealership Defeats Fraud Suit On Statute of Limitations Grounds (ND IL)

image

Occasionally, I’ll have a case that appears to be governed by two or more conflicting statutes of limitations.  For example, one statute will give a plaintiff four years to file suit while an apparently equally applicable one compresses the time to sue to two years.  As plaintiff, I usually (not always) argue for the longer limitations period to apply, while as defendant, I want the shortened time span (so I can move to dismiss the too-late complaint).  

In Belsky v. Fields Imports, Inc., 2013 WL 5819232 (N.D.Ill. 2013), the Northern District methodically analyzes which of two seemingly applicable (and conflicting) limitations periods (is it 10 years or 4 years?) applies to a breach of contract suit involving a defective motor vehicle.

Facts:

Plaintiff sued a car dealership and warranty service administrator for breach of various written agreements generated in connection with plaintiff’s purchase of a BMW.  Plaintiff bought the  car in 2005 and bought the service contract – which provided for repair and replacement of specified car parts – in 2009.  Plaintiff alleged that in 2012 she noticed that the car had a defective engine bolt.  When the defendants failed to provide warranty coverage for the bolt problem, plaintiff sued under state law breach of contract theories.  Defendants’ filed separate Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint.  The court granted the motion and dismissed all counts of plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice.

Q: Why?

A: Plaintiff’s breach of contract claims against the dealership failed for two reasons: (1) the claims were time-barred; and (2) plaintiff failed to allege which part of the sales contract the dealer breached.  The court held that the four-year limitations period set forth in Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”) Section 2-725 (810 ILCS 5/2-725) governed the plaintiff’s sales contract count. 

The UCC applies to “sales” transactions involving “goods” and Section 2-725 simply provides that “an action for breach of any contract for sale must be commenced within 4 years after the cause of action accrued“.  Belsky, *3, 810 ILCS 5/2-725(1).   There is also no “discovery rule”: the four year time limit applies regardless of whether the plaintiff lacked knowledge of the breach.  810 ILCS 5/2-725(2). 

Plaintiff argued that Illinois’ ten-year limitation period for written contract applied.  See 735 ILCS 5/13-206.  But the Court sided with defendants and applied the shorter four-year limitations period.  It held that the BMW, a car, clearly met the UCC’s definition of “goods” (a “thing” that was “moveable” at contract inception) and involved a “sale” (passing of title from seller to buyer for a price).  *3 (UCC Section 2-105(1)(goods definition); UCC Section 2-106(1)(sale def.). 

In addition, Code Section 13-206 (the ten-year statute for written contracts) expressly exempts claims under UCC Section 2-725 (the four-year rule) from its scope.  Section 13-206’s lead-in provides “except as provided in Section 2-725 of the Uniform Commercial Code…”.   Applying the four-year limitation, the Court held that the plaintiff’s breach of contract claims were three years too late and dismissed the case.  *3.

In dismissing the plaintiff’s service contract claims, the Court relied on agency law.  It held that the dealer entered into the contract on behalf of a disclosed principal (the warranty administrator).  Black letter agency rules dictate that an agent (here, the dealer) of a disclosed principal (the administrator) isn’t liable on contracts entered into for its principal.  *7.   The Court also dismissed the plaintiff’s service contract claim against the administrator because like the sales contract, the service contract also specifically excluded engine bolt defects from its coverage.  *9-10.

Take-aways: Where two conflicting limitations periods potentially control, the one that more specifically matches the facts will govern.  A contract for the sale of a “good” (like a car) will trigger the UCC’s four-year time span rather than the ten-year rule for written contracts. 

Also, a contractual disclaimer, if easy to read and find, will be upheld.