Opinion ID: 615991
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Award of Interest on Echo's Claims Against TMI

Text: The district court awarded Echo $215,152.30 in interest on its successful account stated claim. That award was based on a rate of prime plus 4%, the rate Echo had charged TMI on overdue balances in the past. Noting that TMI did not dispute that late fees were owed, the district court concluded that TMI had waived any objection to the interest charges by not adequately developing its argument on that point. In its brief opposing Echo's motion for summary judgment, TMI devoted the following three sentences to the argument opposing an interest award: A party in breach of a contract cannot seek the protection of its provisions. In the present case, Echo cannot seek in its Account Stated claim recovery of interest or late fees because it breached the franchise agreement. The alleged contract sum also does not offset Timberland's damages. (citations omitted). TMI makes the identical argument in its opening brief on appeal, which does not address the district court's waiver determination. We agree with the district court that the argument is too skeletal, and amounted to a waiver. See Otto v. Variable Annuity Life Ins. Co., 134 F.3d 841, 855 (7th Cir.1998) (argument raised in three sentences is waived). TMI neither explains how Echo breached the franchise agreement (it has clarified in this Court, though only in its reply brief, that Echo allegedly breached the franchise agreement by terminating it without cause), nor what provisions of that agreement Echo has invoked in seeking prejudgment interest. Even if TMI had properly preserved that argument, it fails on the merits. The account stated claim was not based on the franchise agreement. Brad Foote Gear Works, Inc. v. Delta Brands, Inc., 349 F.Supp.2d 1073, 1075 (N.D.Ill. 2004) (material disputed fact concerning contract claim in no way precluded granting summary judgment on the account-stated claim). Nor was Echo's claim for interest based exclusively on the franchise agreement. Rather, that claim appears to have been based on language in Echo's invoices, which TMI had paid in the past. TMI accepted the goods at issue, and thus is contractually obligated to pay the interest stated on the invoice under the Uniform Commercial Code, codified at 810 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-207 (West 2011); See K-Koncrete, Inc. v. Mack Trucks, Inc., No. 85 C 9538, 1987 WL 9337, at  (N.D.Ill. Apr. 3, 1987) (Illinois law ... impose[s] a contractual duty to pay interest on a party who (1) accepts goods accompanied by an invoice stating an interest obligation and (2) offers no objection to the stated terms) (referencing U.C.C. § 2-207(2)(c)); Inspec Foams, Inc. v. Claremont Sales Corp., No. 01 C 8539, 2002 WL 1765630, at  (N.D.Ill. July 30, 2002) (under section 5/2-207, overdue payment interest penalty clauses in a seller's shipping documentation are not considered material alterations of the parties' contract and thus are incorporated into the parties' contract terms); Extel Corp. v. Cermetek Microelectronics, Inc., 183 Ill.App.3d 688, 132 Ill.Dec. 10, 539 N.E.2d 320, 323 (1989) (buyer required to pay interest pursuant to the terms set forth in seller's invoices where there was no showing that acceptance was limited to the terms of the offer or that plaintiff objected to the interest provision within a reasonable time). We affirm the interest award.