Spagnoli v. Collision Centers of America, Inc., 2017 IL App (2d) 160606-U portrays a plaintiff’s Pyrrhic victory in a valuation dispute involving a 1966 Pontiac GTO.
The plaintiff car enthusiast brought a flurry of tort claims against the repair shop defendant when it allegedly lost the car’s guts after plaintiff bought it on-line.
The trial court directed a verdict for the defendant on the bulk of plaintiff’s claims and awarded the plaintiff only $10,000 on its breach of contract claim – a mere fraction of what the plaintiff sought.
The Court first rejected plaintiff’s lost profits claim based on the amounts he expected to earn through the sale of car once it was repaired.
A plaintiff in a breach of contract action can recover lost profits where (1) it proves the loss with a reasonable degree of certainty; (2) the defendant’s wrongful act resulted in the loss, and (3) the profits were reasonably within the contemplation of the defendant at the time the contract was entered into.
Because lost profits are naturally prospective, they will always be uncertain to some extent and impossible to gauge with mathematical precision. Still, a plaintiff’s damages evidence must afford a reasonable basis for the computation of damages and the defendant’s breach must be traceable to specific damages sustained by the plaintiff. Where lost profits result from several causes, the plaintiff must show the defendant’s breach caused a specific (measurable) portion of the lost profits. [¶¶ 17-20]
Agreeing with the trial court, the appeals Court found the plaintiff failed to present sufficient proof of lost profits. The court noted that the litigants’ competing experts both valued the GTO at $80,000 to $115,000 if fully restored to mint condition. However, this required the VIN numbers on the vehicle motor and firewall to match and the engine to be intact. Since the car in question lacked matching VIN numbers and its engine missing, the car could never be restored to a six-figures value range.
The Court also affirmed the directed verdict for defendant on plaintiff’s consumer fraud claim. To make out valid Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) claim under the Consumer Fraud Act a plaintiff must prove: (1) a deceptive act or unfair practice occurred, (2) the defendant intended for the plaintiff to rely on the deception, (3) the deception occurred in the course of conduct involving trade or commerce, (4) the plaintiff sustained actual damages, and (5) the damages were proximately cause by the defendant’s deceptive act or unfair conduct. A CFA violation can be based on an innocent or negligent misrepresentation.
Since the plaintiff presented no evidence that the repair shop made a misrepresentation or that defendant intended that plaintiff rely on any misrepresentation, plaintiff did not offer a viable CFA claim.
- A plaintiff in a breach of contract case is the burdened party: it must show that it is more likely than not that the parties entered into an enforceable contract – one that contains an offer, acceptance and consideration – that plaintiff substantially performed its obligations, that defendant breached and that plaintiff suffered money damages flowing from the defendant’s breach.
- In the context of lost profits damages, this case amply illustrates the evidentiary hurdles faced by a plaintiff. Not only must the plaintiff prove that the lost profits were within the reasonable contemplation of the parties, he must also establish which profits he lost specifically attributable to the defendant’s conduct.
- In consumer fraud litigation, the plaintiff typically must prove a defendant’s factual misstatement. Without evidence of a defendant’s misrepresentation, the plaintiff likely won’t be able to meet its burden of proof on the CFA’s deceptive act or unfair practice element.