Court Opinion

ID: 9519021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:07:33.872602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:40:50.227713
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE TRAPP, dissenting: I would affirm the trial court. The opinion agrees that this purported contract was entirely made in Indiana and that the loan was to be made in Indiana pursuant to Indiana law. The theory of a broker form of agency is strained, for the plaintiff could not execute any contract for the loan, and could not commit the defendant to make or complete the loan. The record shows that the defendant did not have any business contact in Illinois, and that the agreement between plaintiff and defendant did not contemplate that defendant would ever have business activity in Hlinois. Plaintiff could only solicit loan commitments. In Cook Associates, Inc. v. Lexington United Corp. (1981), 87 Ill. 2d 190, 429 N.E.2d 847, the supreme court expressly rejected the view, here adopted by the majority, that an executive search organization’s activities in Hlinois brought a Massachusetts corporation within the jurisdiction of this State. See also Colnar v. Baldknobbers, Inc. (1982), 107 Ill. App. 3d 234, 437 N.E.2d 718. In Cook, the court noted that doing business in Illinois required more than solicitation by an employee who only has authority to solicit. The opinion notes that doing business for jurisdictional purposes requires a “ ‘fair measure of permanence and continuity.’ ” (Cook Associates, Inc. v. Lexington United Corp. (1981), 87 Ill. 2d 190, 203, 429 N.E.2d 847, 853.) The majority opinion disregards the principles of Cook. I dissent.