Ray v. R.A. Mechanical, Inc.
2023 IL App (1st) 221639-U
Ill. App. Ct.2023Background
- John H. Ray III filed suit against R.A. Mechanical, Inc. and its president, Robert J. Arvetis, over plumbing services performed as part of a home remodeling project.
- Ray alleged breach of contract, fraud, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, based on oral agreements and payments made through the general contractor, Rigsby Builders.
- The trial court dismissed the original complaint, allowing amendment only as to breach of contract and fraud; a later amended complaint was also dismissed with prejudice under section 2-615 of the Illinois Code of Civil Procedure.
- Ray admitted he never had a written contract with defendants and paid amounts through Rigsby corresponding exactly with the construction agreements, not directly with defendants.
- The appellate court reviewed the trial court’s dismissal and analyzed whether Ray alleged valid consideration for the alleged oral contracts and whether his allegations sufficiently stated claims for fraud or statutory consumer fraud.
- The trial court’s dismissal was affirmed on all counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of Oral Contract | Ray argued oral agreements had independent consideration (payment and consent to subcontractor approval). | Defendants argued no consideration beyond existing contractual duties owed by Ray to Rigsby. | No valid contract; Ray’s asserted consideration was insufficient, as duties already owed. |
| Common Law Fraud | Ray claimed a "change order scheme" with fraudulent promises to induce payments. | Defendants argued plaintiff alleged only future promises and breach, not actionable fraud. | No actionable fraud; future promises/breach alone are not fraud without specific scheme details. |
| Consumer Fraud Act Violation | Ray claimed deceptive practices beyond mere breach, with public impact potential. | Defendants argued plaintiff’s claim was only a disguised contract claim, not true consumer fraud. | No violation; claim was duplicative of contract claim and insufficiently pled for fraud. |
| Opportunity to Replead Act Claim | Ray argued dismissal of his Consumer Fraud count was sua sponte and without leave to replead. | Defendants argued sufficient opportunity was given and the complaint was still deficient. | Dismissal affirmed; court acted within discretion and dismissal on merits was proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Steinberg v. Chicago Medical School, 69 Ill. 2d 320 (Ill. 1977) (basic elements and requirement of consideration for contract formation)
- Miller v. Sutliff, 241 Ill. 521 (Ill. 1909) (breach of contract does not constitute fraud)
- Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., Ltd., 174 Ill. 2d 482 (Ill. 1996) (specificity required in fraud pleadings)
- Avery v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 216 Ill. 2d 100 (Ill. 2005) (Consumer Fraud Act does not supplement every breach of contract claim)
- Robinson v. Toyota Motor Credit Corp., 201 Ill. 2d 403 (Ill. 2002) (elements of a Consumer Fraud Act claim and pleading standards)