Find Court Cases > Go Back to List > Huss v. Sessler Ford Inc.

Huss v. Sessler Ford Inc.

Case Date: 09/30/2003
Court: 1st District Appellate
Docket No: 1-02-3401 Rel


No. 1-02-3401
FRED HUSS,

               Plaintiff-Appellant,

                         v.

SESSLER FORD, INC.,

               Defendant-Appellee,

                         and

FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY,

              Defendant.

 )
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)		 Appeal from the
Circuit Court of
Cook County

 


 


Honorable
David R. Donnersberger,
Judge Presiding.

JUSTICE BURKE delivered the opinion of the court:


Plaintiff Fred Huss appeals from an order of the circuit courtdismissing his claim against defendant Sessler Ford, Inc. forviolation of the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business PracticesAct (Consumer Fraud Act) (815 ILCS 505/2 (West 2000)) set forth incount I of his complaint pursuant to section 2-619(a)(9) of theCode of Civil Procedure (735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 2000)). Onappeal, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in grantingdefendant's motion because defendant's presuit offer to plaintiffdid not render plaintiff's claim moot since the offer did not makeplaintiff whole. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.


STATEMENT OF FACTS

On September 21, 2001, plaintiff purchased a Windstar van fromdefendant. Prior to the purchase, plaintiff advised defendant'semployee that he needed a van that could be converted to a mobileoffice through a third party, Eclipse Conversions. According toplaintiff, defendant's employee told plaintiff that the Windstarcould be so converted, that Eclipse could do it, and that theconversion would take four to six weeks. Plaintiff purchased theWindstar and the cost of the conversion was included in the amountplaintiff financed through Ford Motor Credit Company (Ford).(1)

As of February 2002, plaintiff had not received the convertedvan and, on April 1, he filed a four-count complaint againstdefendant and Ford, alleging that defendant made numerousmisrepresentations to him or omitted material facts at the time ofthe purchase. In count I, plaintiff alleged a claim againstdefendant for violation of the Consumer Fraud Act, seeking actualand punitive damages, recission of the transaction, and attorneyfees and costs. In count II, plaintiff alleged a claim againstdefendant for common law fraud and, in count III, plaintiff allegeda claim against defendant for common law conversion. In count IV,plaintiff alleged a claim against Ford for violation of section433.2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (16 C.F.R.