At the hearing on April 9, counsel for Imperial had an opportunity to state a meritorious defense to the Con- sumer Fraud count. Counsel reiterated Imperial's agency defense. The at- torney for Pretzel responded that an agency defense is appropriate to the contract claim, but not to the consumer fraud claim in the second count of the amended complaint. Imperial failed to do more than deny the consumer fraud claim. The assertion that Imperial was an agent of Savoy is irrelevant.
Agents are liable for their own torts.
108 Ill. App. 64 Ill. Dec. 374, 379. Furthermore, it is generally true under Illinois law that principals are not liable for the torts of their agents, where the agent is not an employee. Even if Imperial was Savoy's agent, as they claim, they were certainly li- able for their own torts. It is a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act to make affirmative misrepresentations in the course of busi- ness to the detriment of consumers.