your resume we have read the briefs we know the facts stick to what you think are here or points and we won't hesitate to ask you questions about what we consider important  remodeling act it has two issues on appeal number one whether the home repair act farce universal's complaint even though neither of the legislative intent or language of the home repair act provides for the in validation of a valid mechanic's lien or a dismissal of a complaint to foreclose the same the second issue is whether universals complaint states of a claim upon which relief can be granted it is universal property under the illinois mechanic's lien act because neither of the legislative intent or language of the home repair act dictates an automatic invalidation of a mechanic's lien or the a complaint based on a noncompliance with this requirements also it's admits that it has substantially complied with section fifteen of the home repair act by providing written itemised for their review and acceptance before starting any of the work on the project in light of the true legislative intent of the home repair act and the involving interpretation of the home repair act by several illinois reviewing courts who recognize substantial compliance in a contract of contractors lien rights despite noncompliance with the whole rare at home repair act universal submits that it has stated a claim upon which other cases before them universal filed a mechanic's lien against the park bookman's property to secure an outstanding balance of one hundred four thousand four hundred ninety seven dollars and sixty five cents it filed suit to enforce that mechanic bachmann's raise the home repair acts as a defense arguing that universal violated the act by failing to secure their signature on the work orders and by not providing them a consumer rights brochure before starting the repair work it is their position that this invalidates the mechanic's lien imposts universal from enforcing it this court should know that this matter has been consolidated with a lawsuit that has been filed the other side of one point three million dollars it's an absurd request universal ardingly ardently disputes that the home repair act invalidates its mechanics lean in process complaint because the home repair acts legislative intent is to safeguard consumers from unfair dealings with contractors and to improve communications between them to increase consumer confidence not to provide consumers with an unjust and that by the way to avoid contractual payment obligations for work completed by contractors in addition the legislative intent is surely not to circumvent or supersede the only mechanic's lien act or to provide prevents contractors from pursuing legal rights before it to them they're under we would submit that the trial court was apparently forced to follow precedent in this matter unfortunately precedent is the case of slept in and the cases of its central illinois election services be slippin and smith  were the cases present at the time those are the cases that control the trial court's ruling on fortunately slappy in boulder were based on improper analysis of the home repair  first the contractors and supping in both art did not provide written itemised work orders to the consumers that's not the case here universal supplied to the bottom ends several work orders was wor associated with that that satisfies the reasonable particularly requirement under six feet section fifteen of the home repair act the other factor that indicates that they substantially comply with the act is that the buck wins were given the opportunity to review each and every work order this is not a situation where universal approached the bottom and said you don't want to put a new roof on your house for four thousand balance find out after the work is completed on the roof that they charge twenty thousand dollars that's not the case here that's the legislative intent that's the goal to prevent situations like that in this situation it's diametric early so either you're in a win based on the most recent cases or they'll win on the left over you you are correct your honor we did not file a thing under the theory of quantum marilyn's and i believe that mcguinness is a good case and but i think there's a difference here in this situation it is our position that this course when it ruled batch a contractor doesn't waive its equitable remedies expression you under the court found the absence of a written contract or work order very important it alternately ruled that an oral contract is not unforeseeable under the act however we would submit in this situation we have both we have an oral contract there was an agreement between the parties on the procedure and that procedure was to submit work orders they would be reviewed and accepted the acceptance is indicated by payment and there was payment a substantial amount of payment on this project and these were oldest were not submitted over a span of a week it was over i believe approximately eleven and a half months workers themselves that's the written document here that is the written document that substantially complies and other at least one review in court in illinois has indicated that the existence of that written work order that is itemized substantially complies with the legislative intent of the act which is to increase consumer confidence in communication between the parties the consumer and the contractor in this case well better what i am saying though is that the remedy sought or the penalty that is sought which is an invalidation of the mechanic's lien were the dismissal of a complaint to foreclose it is not present in the act if you take a look at the enforcement section which i believe is in section thirty five it indicates that the penalties in the remedy that the attorney general would have i believe are set forth under the consumer f and when we take a look at the consumer fraud act the consumer fraud act indicates that there must be actual damages here there has to be actual damages forth there to be any type of i guess  done work unlike in this situation this particular situation yes your honor it is our position that all the work was performed and it is in universal's position that it was workman like and it was complete what they're trying to collect is the outstanding amount d i want to get back to those cases which is the root of the trial court's dismissal unjustly enrich the consumer especially in this situation by effectively eliminating its contract or contractors right to  the permits the consumer to retain the full benefit of improvements on their home free of charge without any set off for the value of the work performed the work performed here was in excess of one point three million dollars the budget points today continue to enjoy the improvements in betterments made to their home while my quiet sits back has to fight to get the outstanding amounts o addition there the contractors failure to comply with either section twenty or section thirty of the home repair act does not bar him from asserting his legal rights the purpose of the ole mechanic's lien act is to require a person invalidates the parties agreement nowhere in the statute does it indicate that it is an inequitable result and it's not based on the legislative intent or the buck means in universal discuss the scope and cost of each portion of the repair work the work was reduced to a written work order was tendered to the bahamas for their approval oversight on its part all the elements for a valid contract exist here including offer acceptance consideration in certain terms those were all set forth in the work orders that substantially comply with section fifteen  act it is universal's position that the existence of these work orders substantially complies with the home repair act and does not invalidate its mechanics leaning gives them the right to state a cause actually his complain into in this case is alleged to be in august of two thousand and six the appellant states in his brief that his client is a reputable builder and based on this contract for signature and then in section thirty it says it is on the mall to proceed with a with a project where you do not have the sank contract or already have maps admitted the brochure it so that's not an issue before the court and there's also a recent case called robert's forces ekins which is third district january two thousand and ten but roberts there was no  the legislatures in ten they amended to stanch it it hasn't been signed by the governor but it's passed both houses and it deletes the unlawful language and it document but it wasn't signed the credit agreement that which is even harsher than the statute of frauds that says there's no president chen at all against the bank unless it's signed by both parties and bob barr that the nursing home care act which requires the responsible party to signing a contract saying they'll be responsible for the patients  allow one party to get a refund or another or the other party to get a refund i think that principle would be a possible second in the the first district case of north vs mcguiness that there was representations this these were the costs of the job plastique his general contractor fee fifteen percent and what he did was he had to do his class without telling us then you cannot enforce it contract or it would be unlawful comply with the statute and you could be very simple trend of the only courts so far from slapping a bogart has been to balance the equities between the consumer and the contractor and it's understandable and it's the right thing to do here it militates toward upholding a contractors mechanically rights when they substantially comply with the home repair act despite a mere procedural the triumphs rather than to provide a consumer for improvements to their home at the expense of a contractor who no collects to comply procedurally with the home repair act it's speaks volumes that the legislative the legislator decided not to recruit a remedy that permitted consumers to avoid a mechanic's lien nowhere in the act we didn't hear word from from the apple lease council we don't see it in the act does it indicate that you can have validated and also very after release the consumer from any and all viability for work that's already been performed completed they have that right to question whether the work was done wrongly or defectively that's a breach of contract lawsuit that indicated provide specific remedies in section thirty five b none of which include the invalidation of the mechanic's lien or the dismissal of my client's complaint that's why i would submit that the complaint of universal was dismissed and the