Anthony M. Frazier v. Castle Ford, Ltd., f/k/a ... - Maryland Courts

was able to take immediate possession of the car. 785 N.E. 2d at 911. Shortly after entering
into the contract, Ms. Jones lost her job, and the lender found by William Buick withdrew
its offer to finance the car. Id. Ms. Jones returned the car and demanded the return of the
down payment via a demand letter from her attorney. Id.
William Buick refunded the $500, but Ms. Jones had already initiated the process of
filing suit under the Illinois consumer protection act and for common law fraud, and did so
shortly after receiving the check. Id. at 912. The trial court dismissed her claims as moot,
given William Buick’s tender of the down payment. Id. On appeal, William Buick relied
upon Hayman v. Autohaus on Edens, Inc., 734 N.E. 2d 1012 (Ill. App. 2000), for the
principle that once William Buick tendered the down payment, Ms. Jones had no injury and
the claim was moot. 785 N.E. 2d at 912. The Illinois intermediate appellate court disagreed
and held that, because Ms. Jones had filed her claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act, she was entitled to attorneys’ fees if she were to prevail
at trial, and William Buick did not tender the full amount of relief requested by Ms. Jones,
such that summary judgment was not appropriate. Id. at 913.
Likewise, in Bates v. William Chevrolet/Geo, Inc., 785 N.E. 2d 53 (Ill. App. 2003),
the same court again considered a tender that did not include attorneys’ fees. Id. at 62. In
that case, Ms. Bates had filed suit alleging common law fraud and a violation of the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act related to her purchase and financing
of a car, id. at 62, and the defending party, William Chevrolet, allegedly tendered to her a
check for all the compensatory damages she requested, but it was returned unopened. Id. at
9