Court Opinion

ID: 9446838
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:19:31.031466+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:30:47.963070
License: Public Domain

DUFFY, Chief Judge
(concurring).
As an original proposition, I would say the transaction in question was a loan. When a seller receives considera*520tion from a buyer solely because of delayed payment, this consideration is, in fact, interest whether it is called “service charges,” “finance charges,” “risk fees,” or some other name. Nevertheless, in this case we must follow Illinois law and decisions by Illinois Courts. Decisions such as Manufacturers Finance Trust v. Stone, 251 Ill.App. 414 compel a holding by us that the transaction in question is a sale and not a loan.
I challenge the correctness of the statement in the Court’s opinion that the percentage figure used in the transaction under consideration was less than the statutory Illinois maximum of 7%. This would be true only if the total principal amount were to remain outstanding over the entire five-year period. Overlooked is the fact that the monthly payments also reduce the principal. The charges made are known in finance circles as a “6% add-on” and which would exceed in straight interest the statutory maximum of 7%.