Court Opinion

ID: 9716525
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:42:39.334522+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:46.404307
License: Public Domain

PRESIDING JUSTICE GREEN, concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in the decision to affirm a judgment in favor of plaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of $8,030.07. I would do so only in regard to count III based upon promissory estoppel. I concur in the decision to reverse the judgments entered in favor of plaintiff in regard to count II sounding in fraud and count IV based upon plaintiff’s being a third-party beneficiary. I dissent from the decision to affirm a monetary judgment in favor of plaintiff and against defendant as to count I, which alleges a violation of article 6 of the Illinois Uniform Commercial Code (Code). Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 26, pars. 6 — 101 through 6 — 110. My dissent from the affirmance of the judgment as to count I results from the award of money damages on that count. Article 6 makes no mention of any award of money damages to a creditor for a violation of the article. Rather, as pointed out in section 6 — 105 of the Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 26, par. 6 — 105), the remedy for a failure of a purchaser to give proper notice is to set aside the sale as to creditors denied proper notice. As Justice Knecht points out, the holding in Continental Casualty Co. v. Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. (1966), 70 Ill. App. 2d 405, 408, 217 N.E.2d 293, 295, and the commentary to the Code (Ill. Ann. Stat., ch. 26, par. 6 — 104, Uniform Commercial Code Comment, at 642 (Smith-Hurd 1963)) indicate that a monetary award to a creditor against a purchaser cannot be based solely on a violation of article 6. I recognize that, for practical purposes, permitting monetary damages to be awarded on a promissory estoppel basis is much the same as permitting such an award on the basis of an article 6 violation. In most cases the forbearance of the creditor constitutes a sufficient detrimental reliance to support a promissory estoppel. However, I am not inclined to analyze the basis of the recovery on the theory that the statute gives the monetary remedy when the statute does not so state, and strong indication is given that such a statutory remedy was not intended by the legislature. Rather, I would base the recovery upon the promissory estoppel theory exclusively. I would make a slightly different analysis of that theory than does Justice Knecht. I question the reliance on Union National Bank & Trust Co. v. Carlstrom (1985), 134 Ill. App. 3d 985, 481 N.E.2d 300, as a basis for the promissory estoppel award. That case involved the use of the doctrine of equitable estoppel as a defense to a suit on a note. There, unlike here, no promises were made. Basing our decision here on analogy to that case gives rise to an inference that when one party violates the rights of another party in regard to a saving or recovery of money, a proper measure of damages is all of the money that might possibly have been recovered or saved. I cannot agree with that theory. For instance, had the fraud count here been established, I would consider an award of the amount here to have been excessive baséd on the extremely remote likelihood that plaintiff would have been able to recover a substantial sum on the debt of Davenport had proper accurate notice been given. On the other hand, as Justice Knecht has correctly set forth, the circuit court could find from the evidence that defendant made a written, signed promise to pay Davenport’s debts owed to plaintiff and others. The detriment to plaintiff in relying on that promise and forbearing from either seeking to collect from Davenport or stopping the sale was of sufficient substance to serve as a substitute for consideration to hold defendant to his promise. This is so even though success by plaintiff in obtaining such relief was very unlikely. The binding nature of such a promise is defined in the following terms. “A promise to be surety for the performance of a contractual obligation, made to the obligee, is binding if * * * (c) the promisor should reasonably expect the promise to induce action or forbearance of a substantial character on the part of the promisee ***, and the promise does induce such action or forbearance.” Restatement (Second) of Contracts §88, at 234 (1981). Clearly, when a binding promise is made to pay the debt of another, and the debtor fails to pay the debt, the measure of damages against the surety includes the unpaid amount of the debt. Under the terms of section 88, a recovery for $8,030.07 owed by Davenport to plaintiff was appropriate here.