The Frain Group, Inc. v. Steve's Frozen Chillers, Inc., 1:14-cv-07097

Background

Frain Group (seller) sold a refurbished liquid packaging machine to Steve’s Frozen Chilliers (buyer) for $254,204 under a written Agreement/Project Acceptance Letter; Agreement described the machine as a “Prodo-Pak Form & Fill,” provided specifications, a 180‑day limited warranty for refurbished components, and a 14‑day return right.
At the Factory Acceptance Test Steve’s signed a check‑out sheet accepting the machine; on delivery to a co‑packer’s facility the machine repeatedly malfunctioned (overflows, inconsistent runs).
Frain sent multiple technicians in July 2014; Frain contended problems were due to operator error and offered paid additional training; Steve’s hired third‑party and Prodo‑Pak technicians who reported non‑original, lower‑quality parts and a fake Prodo‑Pak sticker.
Steve’s counterclaimed for breach of contract and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA); cross‑motions for summary judgment focused on remaining counterclaims (breach and ICFA).
The chief factual disputes: whether the machine’s failings were caused by inferior, Frain‑made parts (and a deceptive fake Prodo‑Pak sticker) or by operator error; whether Steve’s invoked warranty remedies in writing within the 180‑day warranty.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff (Frain) Argument	Defendant (Steve’s) Argument	Held
Breach — machine failed to meet contract specs	Agreement is unambiguous; Frain complied with reconditioning specs and sent qualified technicians; no breach as a matter of law	Machine used inferior non‑Prodo‑Pak parts, did not meet promised performance, so Frain breached	Denied summary judgment to both: genuine dispute of material fact over cause (parts vs. operator) precludes resolution
Breach — failure to provide warranted service (additional free technicians)	Warranty covers defective components only; Frain reasonably refused further free service when machine was working; Steve’s failed to invoke exclusive remedies	Steve’s contends its written communications and counterclaim within 180 days suffice as warranty claims	Denied summary judgment: disputed facts whether warranty was invoked and whether defects existed make this a jury question
ICFA — deceptive act (fake Prodo‑Pak sticker and representations)	No deception: agreement disclosed the machine was refurbished and would be retooled; disclaimers bar reliance on pre‑contract representations	Sticker and representations induced reliance because Steve’s sought an authentic Prodo‑Pak machine; placing a recreated Prodo‑Pak sticker was deceptive	Denied summary judgment: sticker placement is a plausible deceptive act; causation (deception caused injury) remains disputed because injury depends on whether machine was actually defective
Remedies/causation under ICFA	Even if deceptive, Steve’s cannot show proximate injury caused by deception because operator error may explain problems	Steve’s paid for a machine it would not have bought but for representations and paid third parties to repair it—substantial injury	Denied: factual dispute whether deception proximately caused monetary injury requires jury determination

Key Cases Cited

Black Earth Meat Market v. Village of Black Earth, 834 F.3d 841 (7th Cir. 2016) (summary judgment standard)
Life Plans, Inc. v. Sec. Life of Denver Ins. Co., 800 F.3d 343 (7th Cir. 2015) (genuine‑issue standard for summary judgment)
Nat’l Am. Ins. Co. v. Artisan and Truckers Cas. Co., 796 F.3d 717 (7th Cir. 2015) (cross‑motions treat facts in favor of nonmovant)
Mydlach v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 226 Ill.2d 307 (Ill. 2007) (contract/warranty principles)
Lewis v. Benedict Coal Corp., 361 U.S. 459 (1960) (promisor’s duty and remedies in two‑party contracts)
Siegel v. Shell Oil Co., 612 F.3d 932 (7th Cir. 2010) (elements of ICFA claim)
Oshana v. Coca‑Cola Co., 472 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2006) (ICFA proximate causation and damages)
Gehrett v. Chrysler Corp., 379 Ill.App.3d 162 (Ill. App. Ct.) (labeling/marking as deceptive under ICFA)