*1 Meredith, 781.) did defendants here advantage protection choose afforded three-day belatedly form of a cannot invoke expired. after the period has circuit and remanded for a new court reversed trial. and remanded.
Reversed MORAN, dissenting: I dissent with in this case for the reasons my concurring specially noted 46 Ill. 3d 252. VERNON, ILLINOIS, INC., Plaintiff- AMERICAN BUYERS CLUB OF MT. al., Defendants-Appellees. Appellant, v. et LARRY SHAFFER Fifth No. 76-196 District 10, 1977. Opinion March filed MORAN, concurring. J., specially G. *2 Eldorado, Aulgur, appellant. E. for
William Rivers, Vernon, Shirley law and D. Sharp, Sharp, Clark and of Mt. Terry student, appellees. for court: opinion of the delivered the JONES Illinois, Inc., brought suit Vernon, Buyers The American Club of Mt. *621.93, largest the Carolyn Shaffer and Shaffer to recover Larry *456, promissory on a
portion represented principal the balance of which court, fees. The note, being attorney’s charges the remainder late and plaintiff appeals. the and the sitting jury, a found for defendants without a payment the Shaffers executed was promissory The note of *39.50 An “initiation fee” membership” plaintiffs “lifetime the club. promise the was the provided by The club paid. was also furniture carpet that and purchase appliances, members would be able to by the club through buying at club as a result of bulk prices reduced the the the club contacted large membership. agent due its to form, the their contract and application defendants at home and 25, promissory signed Friday, was there October note on and by the Consumer Fraud provided, The contract 121½, par. 262B) Deceptive BusinessPractices buyer might notify full the the days during of three business which this contract. In instance seller of his intention to cancel the contract, Tuesday, indicated on the on period expired, notice of 1974. The also October contract given writing. cancellation be contract, of the day signing following
Mr. Shaffer testified place at the paneling in Mt. Vernon for wall Saturday, shopping he went memberships were plaintiff where its recommended one get could He found that he prices honored and lower could obtained. Tuesday, following On the cheaper prices at Mt. Vernon. another store Mt. testified, at he their defendant called the and Vernon office told them he “wanted out.” argues that was ineffective plaintiff attempted this requirements governed by for cancellation were reply that the contract which called for written notice. The defendants governed situation is by the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and their oral complied cancellation notice with the was effective.
The trial court found that the Consumer Fraud and Business applicable Practices Act was instant transaction and we agree. The Act in pertinent reads part: having “Where merchandise a cash sales price *25 more * # *
sold contracted sold a consumer as a result of or in connection with a salesman’sdirect contact with or call on consumer at his residence soliciting without consumer’s call, contact or may that consumer avoid the contract or sale notifying the seller within 3 full following day business days ” * which the contract signed or the sale was °. At the made time the sale is signed, made or the contract salesman shall furnish buyer receipt with written containing contract ‘Notice Cancellation’ informing buyer may that he cancel the sale at days. time within such 3 Such written ‘Notice of Cancellation’ be sent the seller to cancel contract. The 3 day period provided for in this Section does not commence until the Notice of Cancellation and the consumer furnished the or phone address at which such number notice to given.” (Ill. seller can be par. 262B.) wares, The word “any “merchandise” is Act objects, defined *3 commodities, goods, intangibles, real estate situated the State outside of Illinois, (Ill. or par. 261.) services.” A service was offered and in is contracted for instant cause and the statute applicable. question now becomes whether the in the form contract provision by
drawn up the American required Club which that notice of writing cancellation be in present should control. The defendants several arguments in it support They take the of their contention that should not. position by failing “notify” in to include a definition of or “notice” particular section of the defining carry import statute words which legislature within the Act of interpretation intended to direct they commonly legal They urge words are used in us to adopt matters. Code; the definition given of “notice” in Illinois Uniform Commercial person taking “A ‘gives’ by ‘notifies’ or notification to another notice steps may reasonably ordinary such inform the other in be actually course whether not such other to know of it.” comes 26, par. 201(26).) point that the written They further out 1— buyer, “Notice furnish the of Cancellation” which the seller Act, “may” of of cancellation but its use words be sent notice requires the statute argue is not mandated. The defendants next that since
269 of number at which notice phone address or the seller furnish the contemplates by notice either given that the Act method, exclusively mail. by not alone, convincing. standing arguments, do find these
We us However, overriding which convinces there is one giving notice contemplate that method the statute does not parties. The contract between the cancellation should controlled isAct consumer Business Practices Consumer Fraud indicates, enacted, protect “to consumers It title legislation. was * * 000 * any in conduct of practices unfair acts notice of cancellation giving trade To allow method or commerce.” parties would be regulated by to be the salescontract between which the statute intended away from consumer the could, include interpretation afford him. under such an Sellers which would eviscerate notice of cancellation statute, As privilege gives which the him. we read serve, in it the method which purpose view of was intended give is to notice method of cancellation to seller ordinary seller in reasonably calculated to inform the course Such a method used in the instant case. business. decision, public policy
This of overriding based considerations statute, expressed accords legislature the enactment of with v. reasoning Corp. Mowdy, Finance utilized court Household Ill. 3d 863. of the circuit court is affirmed.
Affirmed. MORAN, specially concurring: In concur with the this case the reasons Buyers Club in American my specially concurring those noted