NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 10a0553n.06 No. 09-5123 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT MARK NAI YU SUN, Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. C M P R O D U C T S , IN C
. ; C H IC A G O M E T A LLIC PRODUCTS, I

NC., De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT CO UR T F OR

TH E E AST ERN DI STRI CT OF KENTUCKY

Be for e : KEITH , C OLE, and G IBBO NS, Ci r c uitJudg e s.
DAMON J. K

EITH , Circuit Judge. Ap pe lla nt M a r k N a i y u S u n ( “ Sun ” ) s ue d App e lle e CM Products, I nc. (“ CM”), allegingthat CM breac hed its oral contr act with him and violated the implied
c ov e na nt o f g oo d fa ith and fa ir de a lin g . Sun c la ims that CM re ta ine d h im t o a ssi st i n th e purc ha se of Chinese a luminum foil products fr om L often Aluminum Foil I ndustry Company

(“L often” ), and that h e w a s to r e c e iv e a c o mm is s io n in e xc h an g e f o r h is s e r v ic e s . U p o n le ar

n in g that CM had by pa sse d h im a

nd dir e c tl y con tac ted L of

te n to dis c us s p ur c ha sin g fo il p ro du c ts, Sun fi le d th is lawsuit. At the close of

discovery , the district court g rante d CM’s motion for summar y judgme nt on Sun’s claims ag ainst it, and Sun filed a timely appea l. Fo r t h e re asons di scussed be low, we RE VE RSE
. INo. 09-5123

Mark Naiyu Sun v . CM Products, Inc. Pag e 2

See Wor ld C la ss S hip pin g , h ttp :// ww w. wo rl dc la sss hip pin g .c om/ inc ote rm _d dp .h tml (l a st 1 visited May

31, 2010). DDP is a ter

m publ i s h ed by

the I nternational Chamber of Commerc e that is widely used in international tra de. See Appellant’s B r. at 2 (c iting use of DDP by which is detailed CM i s a manu fa c tur e r

o f r e c y c la ble a lum inum f

oil c on ta ine rs and

pla sti c pa c ka g ingpr od

uc ts, and is a subsidiary

of Chicag o Metallic P roducts, I nc., which is located in L ake Z urich, I llinois . On J uly 5, 2006, Sun had a telephone conver sation with Ron Kelly (“K elly ”), CM’s Dire ctor of Purchasin g , during which Sun claims that the par ties entere d into an oral c ontrac t for Sun’s broke ring service s. Sun claims that in ex chang e for introducing CM to a Chinese aluminum foil manufactur er, L often, he was to re ceive a commission for any p u rc h ases that CM made f rom that manufa cture r. Additionally , CM would be prohibited from contac ting L often direc tly without his assist ance . Sun ha d s e nt a

n e ma il to Kel ly , s ta tin g that he br ok e rs tr ans a c tio ns be tw e e n Ch ine se a lum inum f oil
manu fa c tur e rs and inv iti ng Ke lly to co nta c t him. He int ro du c e d K e lly

to L of te n’ s p ro du c ts i n th is
e ma il. Ke lly re sp on de d b y statin g that “ [w]e c ur

re ntl y do no t im po rt ho us e ho ld f

oil s b ut a re str on g ly
c on sid e ri ng ” it, inq

uir e d a bo ut S un ’s a va ila

bil ity fo r a

me e tin g , a

nd re qu e ste d p ri c e qu otatio ns . ( R. 77-2, Ex. A-1, Email Ex chang e at 10.) Sun e ma ile d K e lly , wi th pr ic e qu otatio ns fo r “ fo od se rv ic e ro ll f

oil ,” “ fo od

se rv ic e ro ll f

oil premium,” a

nd “interf olded foil sheets.” The pric e quotation dat ed J uly 5, 2006, stated that Sun I nternational Company , Sun’s brokeringcompany , would rec eive a five pe rce nt commission fee. Af te r r e c e ivi ngthe qu otatio ns fr om S un , o n July 5, 20 06 , K e lly

se nt a n e ma il t o Sun statin g that CM

“ wo uld lik e the a tta c he d li st q

uo te d d e liv e re d to L a ke Z ur ic h, I L .” (R . 7 7-2 , Ex
. A- 1, Em a il Ex chang e at 11.) On J uly 18 , 2 0 0 6 , Ke l l y reque sted that Sun provide “quote pr ices DD P L ake Z urich.” (

Id. at 16.) DDP is the international trade term for “deliver y duty paid.” Sun responded

1No. 09-5123

Mark Naiyu Sun v . CM Products, Inc. Pag e 3

in I nte r n a tio n a l Ch a mbe r s of C o m m erce I n c ote r m s , http:// www.icc wbo.org /incoterms/prea mbles/pdf/DDP.pdf (last visited May 31, 2010))

. to Kelly ’s re quest for a

DDP L ake Z urich quote on July 17, 2006. Kelly

emailed Sun on Aug ust 10, 2006, s t at i n g that Sun’s quotations were he lpful and that CM neede d to “g aug e customer require ments and dete rmine the size of the mar ket.” ( R. 89, Ex . R, Email Ex chang e at 13.) Som e tim e in l a te su mme r o r e arl y fa ll o f 200 6, Sun c la ims that CM c on ta c te d L of te n d ir e c tly reg arding the purchase of foil products. Sun claims that Ted L eungof CM beg an conta cting L often on its behalf. L eung did not beg in his employ ment with CM unti l September 2006. On Septe mber 22 , 2 00 6, Sun

e ma ile d K e lly

statin g that he be c a me awa re of CM’ s ef fo rt s to c on ta c t L of

te n d ir e c tly and stated that Kelly

was e ng ag ing in unf

air business prac tices. Kelly responde d to Sun’s email by statin g that CM did no t hav e c on ta c t with L of te n, and that it wa s simp ly e xplor ing its op tio ns wi th
a var iety of broker s and suppliers. Soon a fter rec eiving this corre spondence from Sun, in October 20 06 , CM re ta ine d Ch ina S mar t S ou rci ng , a n I lli no is a

nd Sha ngha i- ba se d s ourc ingfi rm , to a ssi st with the identification, selec tion, a nd neg otiation with Chinese manufa cture rs. Fr ank Cai of China Smart Sourcing assisted in the order ing and shipping of products from L often to CM. Since 2006, L often has manufa cture d sample aluminum f oil c oil pr oducts for CM’s inspec tion. CM claims t hat its relationship with L often is the re sult of the work of F rank Cai of China Smart Sourcingand of CM, not the effor

ts of Sun. On April 1, 2007, Sun emailed Ke lly and stated that he was e ntitled to a commission of fiveperc ent of the va lue of the c ontrac t that CM and L often ha d enter ed for 1,800 metric tons of aluminum, and he ca lculated his commission as $ 3 4 2 , 0 0 0. Kelly responde d by

stating that CM’sNo. 09-5123

Mark Naiyu Sun v . CM Products, Inc. Pag e 4 business with L often ha d nothing to do with Sun, and that Sun had merely provided him with price quotations. Kelly emailed L enny L iu, L often’s Export Manag er, statingthat Sun claimed he ha d an

“ e xclu siv e ri g ht t o r e pr e se nt L of te n f or a ll p ro du c ts. ” (R . 7 7- 3, Ex. B -1 , E ma il E xch ang e a t 5. ) L iu
c o n f i r m e d t h a t S u n w a s n o t a L o f t e n a g e n t a l t h o u g h S u n h a d s e n t an i n qu i r y t o L o f te n b e fo re L iu joined the company

in September 2006. On July 7, 2007, CM and L often e ntere d into a sales contra ct for “ aluminum container f oil.” At the close of discovery , CM moved for summary judgme nt, and the district cour t gr anted its motion. The court noted that the alleg ed contr act f ailed to spec ify

“cr itical terms for a

ny broker contra ct – when the contra ct would beg in, how long it would last, what specific se rvice s the broker would provide, a

nd how his commission would be determined.” (R. 91, Orde r at 10.) II. A. Stand ard of Review Th is C ou rt re vie ws a

dis tr ic t c ourt ’s g ra

nt o f s umm ary

jud g me nt de novo
. See Spe ncer v . Bo uc ha rd , 4 4 9 F. 3 d

7 2 1 , 7 2 7 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) ( ci t i n g McQ ueen v . Bee cher Cmty. Sc h. , 433 F.3d 460, 463 (6th Cir. 2006)). Summary judgme nt is only

appropr iate whe re “ the pleading s, the discover y and discl o s u r e mate r ia ls o n f il e , an d an y a f

f id a v it s s h o w th a t th e r e is n o g e n u in e is s u e a s to any
m a t e r i a l f a c t an d t h a t t h e m o v an t i s e n t i t l e d t o j u d g m e n ta s a m a t t e r o f l aw . ” F e d
. R
. C i v . 5 6 ( c )
. “ In consideringa motion for summary judgme nt, the district c ourt must construe the e vidence and dra w all rea sonable infere nces in favor of the nonmoving pa

rty .” See Jones v. Potter , 488 F.3d 397, 402- 0 3 (6 t h C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) ( ci t i n g Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Z en ith Radio Cor

p. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986))
.No. 09-5123

Mark Naiyu Sun v . CM Products, Inc. Pag e 5 B. Choice of Law T h i s c a s e w a s b r o u g h t p u r s u an t t o 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 3 3 2 a s a d i v e r s i t y o f c i t i z e n s h i p l aw s u i t
. In a diver sity

action, the c hoice of

law princ iples of the for

um state apply
. Se e Mo ntgom e ry v . W y e th , 580 F.3d 455, 459 ( 6th Cir. 2009). Acco rding ly , Kentucky choice of law pr inciples apply here beca use Sun broug ht this action in the Eastern District of Kentucky
. Under Kentucky

law, the law

of the state w ith “the most si gn i fi cant relationship to the transac tion and the parties” and “the g reatest conce rn wit h the s pecif ic i ssue raised in the litigation” applies. Breeding v . Massachusetts Inde m. & Life I ns. Co. , 6 33 S.W. 2d

71 7, 71 9 ( Ky . 1 98 2) ; see also Lewis v. Ame rican Family Ins. Group , 555 S.W .2d 579, 581 (Ky . 1977). Sun claims that the
or a l c on tr a c t w a s f

or me d d ur inga te le ph on e c on ve rs a tio n o n July 5, 20 06 , b e tw e e n h ims e lf in Ke ntu c ky and Ke lly in I lli no is. Ne ith e r state ha s a gr e a te r co nn e c tio n to the a lle g e d c on tr a c t in thi s
re sp e c t. H ow e ve r, any

g oo ds ord e re d b y

CM w ou ld b e de liv e re d to CM’ s p la c e of bu sin e ss i n I lli no is, and

CM w ou ld h a ve pr oc e sse d th e g oo ds in I lli no is. I n lig ht of thi s c on ne c tio n to I lli no is, the district court prope rly applied I llinois substantive law to construe the alleg ed contr act be tween Sun and CM. C. Enf

orce abili ty of the Alleged Contrac t An ora l agr eeme nt is enforc eable under I llinois law if ther e is an off er, a cce ptance , and meeting of the minds re g arding the terms of the ag ree ment. Se e Qu inl an v . S tou ffe , 823 N.E. 2d 597, 603 (I ll. App. Ct. 2005). The essential terms of t he contract must be “r easona bly cer tain.” Le wis

Kearns v. Mayflower Transit, Inc. , 9 3 2 F. S u p p . 1 0 6 1 , 1 0 7 0 (N
. D. I l l
. 1 9 9 6 ) ( ci t i n g Caporale v. Mar Les, Inc. , 6 56 F . 2d 242 , 245 (7 th C ir . 1 98 1) ). An or a l a g re e me nt m

us t “ me e t th e same re qu ir e me ntsNo. 09-5123

Mark Naiyu Sun v . CM Products, Inc. Pag e 6
as a w ritten contra ct .
. . including the require ments that the subject matter be suff iciently identified.” As hli ne v . V

e rb le , 370 N.E. 2d 613, 615 (I ll. 1977)
. “When materia l terms and conditions are not
acsc erta inable, there is no enforc eable contra ct, eve n if the intent to contrac t is present.” Mi dwe st Builder Distrib., Inc. v. Lord and Essex, I nc. , 891 N.E. 2d 1, 16 (I ll. App. Dist
. 1 2007) (quoting W a g n erExc ello Foods, Inc. v . Fearn Int’l I nc. , 6 0 1 N
. E
. 2 d

9 5 6 , 9 6 0 ( M ic h
. 1 9 9 2 ) )
. H o w ever ,

“ [e]v e n th ou g h o ne or

mor e te rm s are le ft

op e n a c on tr a c t f

or sa le do e s no t fa il fo r ind e fi nit e ne ss i f the par ties have intende d to m ak e a co ntrac t and there is a rea sonably cer tain basis for g iving a

n appropr iate re medy .” Id. (citation omitted). Th e dis tr ic t c ourt

he ld t hat no e nf

or c e a ble c on tr a c t e xiste d be c a

us e the or a l a g re e me nt d id not “spec ify the duration of t he contract, the specific nature of t he ser vices Sun would provide, or perha ps most telli ng ly , the price of his servic es.” ( R. 95, Order at 11.) The se fa ctual finding s by the d i s t ri ct co u rt we re erro n eo u s . T h e J u l y 5 , 2 0 0 6 p ri ce qu o t at i o ni n d i ca t edt h e c o m m i s s i o np er ce n t age that Sun would r ece ive, the international trade definition for DDP outlines the obligations that S un would underg o, and the g ener al obliga tions of the parties a

ppear to be identifiable unde r the a lleg ed contra ct. The only

ambig uity

conce rns the duration of the alleg ed contr act. “Howeve r, a c ontrac t ‘is sufficie ntly definite and cer tain to be enfor cea

ble if the court is e nabled from the terms and pr ov isi on s th e r e o f

, u n d e r pr op e r r ule s o f c on str

uc tio n a nd a pp lic a ble pr inc ipl e s o f e qu ity , to a sc e rt a in what the pa

rties have ag ree d t o do.’” Midland Hotel Corp. v. Reube n H. Donnelley Corp. , 515 N.E.2d 61, 65 (I ll. App. Ct. 1987). Acc ording to Sun, he was to introduce CM to a Chinese manuf actur er a nd be the sole c ontact be tw e e n CM and

the manu fa c tur e r. Th e c on tr a c t w ou ld i nc lud e the sa le of a lum inum f

oil pr od uc ts,No. 09-5123

Mark Naiyu Sun v . CM Products, Inc. Pag e 7 DDP to L ake Z urich, a

nd there would be a f

ive per cent c ommissi on as noted on the J uly 5, 2006 price quotation. There is a genuine issue of m ater ial fac t conce rning the exist ence of a c ontrac t, the
cre dibilit y

and we ight of

the evidenc e pre sented by Sun, and whether

Sun fulfilled the terms of the
a l l e g e d a g r e e m e n tb y p r o v i d i n g L o f t e n ’ s w e b a d dr e s s an d s u

b m i t t i n g m u l t i p l e qu o t a t i o n s t o K e l l y. Kelly ’s initial response to Sun, denying any contac t w ith L often, sug g ests that Kelly rec og nized that he wa s e xpe c te d to re fr a in fr om c on ta c tin g L of te n dir e c tly
. F ur

the r, the re is c on tin

uin g a mbi g uit

y
c on c e rn ingCM’ s c on ta c t w ithL of te n a ft e r S un pr ov ide d the qu otatio ns to it. Th e L of te n a nd CM
e mpl oy e e s, oth e r tha

n Ke lly , who sh ou ld be kn ow le dg e a ble a bo ut thi s subj e c t, L e un g and L iu, did not beg in their employ

ment until September 2006, afte r S un claims that alleg ed bre ach of contra ct
occur red. A r e a so na ble jur or c ou ld c re dit

Sun ’s ve rs ion of the fa c ts an d fin d tha t th e re wa s a re a so na bly dis c e rn a ble a g re e me nt h e re , a

nd that K e lly

c on sid e re d h ims e lf

bo un d b y its te rm s. I t is fo r t he fa c tfi nd e r t o ma

ke su c h c re dib ili ty

de te rm inatio ns . “ Wei g hin g of the e viden ce or makin g c re dib ili ty deter minations are pr ohibited at summary judgme nt - rathe r, all f

ac t s m u s t b e viewe d in the light most fa vorable to the non-moving party .” Keweenaw v. Bay Indian Comm. v. Rising , 477 F.3d 881, 886 (6th Cir. 2007) (c itation omit ted). “ I t is error f or the district cour

t to resolve cr edibility

issues ag ainst the nonmovant: ‘I n eff ect, a ny direc t evidence o ff

er ed b y the plaintiff in re sponse to a summary judge ment motion mus t be ac cepte d as true. T he district errs by g ranting summary judgme nt for def

endant whe re issue of

cre dibilit y

are dete rm inative of the c ase.’ ” Centra, Inc. v

. Es tri n , 538 F.3d 402, 412 (6th Cir. 2008)
. CM a rg ues that its re lationship with L often re lates to the provision of “foil coil,” not the food servic e foil provided in the pr ice quotations. Howe ver, Sun’sNo. 09-5123

Mark Naiyu Sun v . CM Products, Inc. Pag e 8 initial email to C M pertaine d to aluminum products in g ener al, and Sun claims that his J uly 5, 2006 te le ph on e c on ve rs a tio n w ithKe lly re la te d to the sa le of

a lum inum pr od

uc ts g e ne ra lly
. Th ere i s sufficie nt e vidence for a rea sonable fa ct-finde r to conc lude that a c ontrac t exi sted, and that Sun was expected to broke r a de al per taining to a luminum foil products in g ener al as indicated in his ini tial email. Acc ording ly , summary judgme nt is inappropriate. D. P lai nt iff’s Cl aim for Br e ac h of t he Im plie d Co ve nant of G oo d F ait h and F airDe ali ng As the district court noted, “Sun’s claim for breac h of t he im plied covena nt of g ood faith and fair de aling clea

rly arises out of the alleg ed bre ach of contra ct by

CM . . . .” (R. 91, Or der, at 13.) Under I llinois law, the c ovenant of g ood faith and fair dealing is not an independent s ource for r elief but instead “guides the construc tion of expli cit terms i n an [alrea dy exis ting] ag ree ment.” Beraha v. Bax ter Health Care Corp. , 9 56 F .2 d 1 43 6, 14 43 (7 th C ir . 199 2) (c iti ngI lli no is c a se law) . Wh ile understandingthe cove n an t o f g ood faith and f air de aling is releva

nt in reviewingthe alleg ed contra ct betwe en Sun and CM, it is not an indepe ndent ca use of a ction. To the extent that Sun
as s er t s a s ep ar at e b as i s o f re co v ery b as ed o n a b re ac h o f t h e c o v en an to f go o d fa i t h an d fa i r d ea l i n g, summary judgme nt conce rning such a c laim is appropriate
. III
. For the af o rementioned rea sons, we RE VE RSE the district court’s g rant of summar y jud g me nt o n Sun’ s b re a c h o f c on tr a c t c la im.No. 09-5123

Mark Naiyu Sun v . CM Products, Inc. Pag e 9 JULIA SMITH GIBBONS , concurring in p a rt and d issenting i n part. Ic on c ur wi th J udg e Keith’s conclusions that I llinois state law applies to this matter a nd that summary

judgme nt is appropriate on Sun’s covena nt-of-g ood-fa ith claim, but I respe ctfully dissent from his conclusion that a g enuine issue of

materia l fac t rema ins with respe ct t o Sun’s brea ch-of -contra ct claim. The two piece s of evidenc e upon which the majority relies in so finding are insufficient to demonstrate that a contr act e x ists and inappropriate for c onsideration as evidenc e of contra ct formation. Bec ause the
rec ord indicate s that no contrac t was form ed b et we en Sun and CM Products, I would aff irm the district court’s g rant of summar y judgme nt to CM P roducts on this claim. Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 56(c ) “ma ndates the e ntry

of summary

judgme nt, after adequate time for discove ry and upon motion, ag ainst a par ty who fa ils to m ake a

showing sufficie nt to e sta bli shthe e xiste nc e of

an e le me nt e sse nti a l to that pa rt y ’s c a se , an d on

wh ic h th a t pa

rt y wi ll bear the burde n of proof

at trial.” Ce lot e

x Cor p. v . Ca tre tt , 477 U.S. 317, 321 (1986). Thus, in orde r for Sun to preva il at trial on his breac h-of- contra ct claim, he must prove the eleme nt that an enfor cea ble contra ct exist ed. As the district c ourt corr ectly determ i n ed, Sun has not and c annot demonstrate that the parties f ormed such a

contra ct. See Sun v. CM Prods., Inc. , No. 5:07-cv- 227- J MH, 2009 WL 482523 (E.D. Ky . Fe b. 25, 2009). An ora l contrac t, like a written contract, is enfor cea ble only if there is an offe r, ac cepta nce, and a meeting of the minds re g arding the mater ial terms. Se e Qu inl an v . S tou ffe , 823 N.E.2d 597, 603 (I ll. Ct . App. 2005) (c itation omit ted). The “esse ntial terms of t he contract must be definite and
cer tain,” which is satisfied onl y “if the court is enable d from the terms and pr ovisions thereof, unde r proper rules of c onstruction and applica ble principles of

equity , to asce rtain what the parties haveNo. 09-5123

Mark Naiyu Sun v . CM Products, Inc. Pag e 10 ag ree d to do.” Id. (interna l quotation marks and citations omitte d ). The majority finds that “the g e ne ra l ob lig a tio ns of

the pa rt ie s a pp e ar i de nti fi a

ble un de r the a lle g e d co ntr a c t” and that “ [t]he on ly ambig uity conce rns the dura

tion of the alleg ed contr act.” Slip Op. at 6. I respe ctfully disag ree . Fi rs t , S u nd o es n o tp re s en tev i d en ce s u ff i ci en tt o es t ab l i s h an en fo rc eab l e co n t ra ct
. Al t h o u gh Sun makes numerous unsup p o rt ed arguments and ac cusations, the only evidenc e in the re cord pe rt a ini ngto c on tr a c t f

or ma tio n is c on ta ine d in va ri ou s e ma ils e xch ang e d b y the pa rt ie s. Th os e
c e rt a inl y do no t r e fl e c t of

fe r, a c c e pta

nc e , me e tin g of

the min ds , o r d e fi nit e and c e rt a in t e rms. Mo re ov e r, e ve n if

we a ssume that Sun’ s b a se le ss a lle g a tio ns c ou ld b e su pp or ted by e vid e nc e , h is descr iption of the contrac t is insufficient to establish one. I n response to defe ndants’ interr og atory
a sk ingthe “ sp e c if

ic te rm s” of

the a lle g e d c on tr a c t, S un state d: Th e te rm s o f t

he c on tr a c t w e re that Sun w ou ld c on ve y CM Pa c ka g inginq uir ie s to L often Aluminum Foil I ndust ry Co. L TD. Sun I nternational Company would g et L often Aluminum Foil I ndu s t ry C o . ’s quotation, would add Sun’s commission fee to t he qu ot atio n, and

wo uld se nd the qu otatio n to CM Pa c ka g ing . M ark Sun a lso e xplic itl y tol d CM Pa c ka g ingth at wi th ou t Sun invo lve me nt, CM Pa c ka g ingc ou ld neither c ontact nor de al with the company that Sun introduced. I n contra st, in his brief befor e this court, Sun pr ovided a differ ent but mor e detailed de scription of the contra ct at issue: Th e c ri tic a l pr oc e dure s f

or thi s o ra l a g re e me nt are [:] wh e n Ke lly se nd s his inq uir ie s, the contra ct would beg in; when Sun of fer s the quotation of international tra de ter m and Ke lly acc ept s t h e q u otation, the term is implemented; when Ke lly sends the pay ment and Sun delivers the g oods to CM, t he sale contr ac t i s completed; whe n Kelly stops to send his inquiries and purcha sing order , the obligations of the contra ct do no t a llo w K e lly

to c on ta c t Sun’ s su

pp lie rs . I n n e ith e r d e sc ri pti on

are the te rm s “ de fi nit e and c e rt a in” su c h th a t a

c ourt c ou ld e nf or c e the c on tr a c t. There are no specific s about terms re g ardingdelivery , duration of the c ontrac t, the products to whichNo. 09-5123

Mark Naiyu Sun v . CM Products, Inc. Pag e 11 the contra ct applies, the a mount of the commission, or when or how pay ment wo u l d be re ceive d. Th is a lle g e d c on tr a c t do es no t outli ne the pa rt ie s’ ob lig a tio ns be y on d th e e xch ang e of qu otatio ns , and, ther efor e, does not de monstrate a “ meeting of the minds as to the terms of the ag ree ment.” Most importantly , the commission fee—a standard e lement of a broker ’s contra ct—was not a g ree d upon befor e the a lleg ed execution of that c ontrac t be g an when Sun’s e mail pr ovided the first price quotations. Second, the e vidence upon which Sun and the major ity rely cannot pr operly

be conside red
as evidenc e of the formation of the alleg ed contra ct. The majority first finds that the price quotation sent by Sun t o Ke l l y

on J uly 5, 2006, that stated that there was a five pe rce nt commission for the order is evidenc e of a

contra ct. Slip Op. at 6. Howeve r, the pric e quotation ca nnot provide evide nce of what terms wer e ag ree d upon in a ny oral contra ct enter ed into by Kelly and Sun by

phone ea rlier that day . More importantly , under I llinois law, the acts of a principal and not those of a n ag ent (such as a br oker) cre ate the ag ency relationship, and it is the ag ent’s burde n of proof to demonstrate that relationship using evidenc e other than his own actions. See F irst Am. Ti tle Ins. Co. v. TCF Bank , 67 6 N .E .2 d 1 00 3, 10 08 (I ll
. Ap p. Ct. 19 97 ); Granite Props. Ltd. P’ship v. Granite Inv. Co. , 581 N. E. 2d 90 , 9 2 ( I ll. Ap p. Ct. 19 91 ); Hajeck v. W yrick, 463 N.E.2d 1348, 1352 (I ll. App. Ct. 1984). Conse q u en t l y , Sun cannot use e vidence of his own ac tions that post-date the for mation of the contra ct as proof

of the e x istence of

that contra ct. The majority

also relies on the use of the t rade term “DDP” in emails betwee n Kelly and Sun
a s e vid e nc e that the pa

rt ie s ag re e d to ce rt a in obl ig a tio ns wi th r e sp e c t to de liv e ry and c on du c t. S lip Op. at 6. I t is common for businesses to solicit price quotations from diff ere nt distributers, and theNo. 09-5123

Mark Naiyu Sun v . CM Products, Inc. Pag e 12 use of tra de languag e in doing so is not itself evidenc e of the exis tence of a contra ct or the terms of an alleg ed contr act. Ne ither the use of standard trade terms nor Sun’s email on their own provide sufficie nt evidence of the e ssential terms of the a lleg ed contr act
. S un offe rs no other obje ctive evidenc e re g ardingthe formation of the contra ct. Be c a u s e Sun f a il e d to p r o d

u c e s u f f ic ie n t e v id e n c e th a t h e an d CM Pr o d u c ts a g r e e d to the materia l elements of the alleg ed contra ct, he fa iled to establish the essential ele ments of his brea chof -c on tr a c t c la im. There fore , Irespe ctfully

dissent and would af

firm the dis t ri ct co urt’s g rant of summar y jud g me nt.