Page 21 - John Hundley 2010

New Developments Update

Sharp Thinking

No. 38 Perspectives on Developments in the Law from The Sharp Law Firm, P.C. October 2010
Illinois Home Repair and Remodeling Act Sees Changes

Developments have been hot and heavy with respect to the Home Repair and Remodeling Act (815
ILCS 513) discussed in Sharp Thinking #31 (March 2010). First, Universal Structures, Ltd. v. Buchman,
402 Ill.App.3d 10 (1st Dist. 2010), held that failure to obtain signatures to work orders does not bar a
mechanic’s lien claim when there is plenty of
evidence of an otherwise valid oral contract. Special Update Issue
Then the General Assembly repealed the From its inception Sharp Thinking has aimed to report
open-ended provision which arguably allowed on developments in the law. As that goal recognizes, the law
homeowners to escape paying because of the is not static – and no matter how thorough and perceptive an
contractor’s failure to obtain a signed contract or analysis may be, it cannot stop further development.
to deliver the required brochure. Now the Accordingly, from time to time Sharp Thinking publishes
exclusive remedy will be an action for actual special update issues discussing new developments in areas
damages under § 10a of the Consumer Fraud already covered – developments which individually do not
& Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 justify another issue on the topic, but of which we want to
ILCS 505/10a. P.A. 96-1023. make you aware. This issue provides such updates on
several topics.
Then Fleissner v. Fitzgerald, __ Ill.App.3d If a topic is of interest and you do not have the original
__, 2010 WL 3180210 (2d Dist. Aug. 6, 2010), issue to consult for reference, please check it out on our
held that the act does not bar equitable website, www.thesharpfirm.com, or request it by e-mailing
remedies, such as quantum meruit and unjust Sara@lotsharp.com.
enrichment.

Finally, last month the Supreme Court reversed the lower court decision, discussed in Sharp Thinking
#31, in K. Miller Const. Co. v. McGinnis, __ Ill.2d __, 2010 WL 3704993 (Sept. 23, 2010). The high court
held that a violation of the act did not make the oral contract necessarily unenforceable, and treated P.A.
96-1023 as “clarify[ing] the previous law and mak[ing] clear that a violation of the Act does not render oral
contracts unenforceable or relief in quantum meruit unavailable”.

Illinois Rules of Evidence Approved

The Supreme Court has approved, with some modifications, the proposed Illinois Rules of Evidence
discussed in Sharp Thinking #32 (April 2010).
The changes from the proposed rules discussed in #32 include:

 Revising Rule 101 to clarify that the rules do not intend to abrogate or supercede any existing
statutory rules of evidence;

 Reserving Rule 407 dealing with remedial measures in product liability cases until the Court
rules on Jablonski v. Ford Motor Co., leave to appeal granted, 236 Ill.2d 555 (2010);

 Revising Rule 702 to affirm that Illinois adheres to core principles of the Frye test for admissi-

●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●●
Sharp Thinking is an occasional newsletter of The Sharp Law Firm, P.C. addressing developments in the law which may be of interest. Nothing contained in Sharp
Thinking shall be construed to create an attorney-client relation where none previously has existed, nor with respect to any particular matter. The perspectives herein
constitute educational material on general legal topics and are not legal advice applicable to any particular situation. To establish an attorney-client relation or to obtain legal
advice on your particular situation, contact a Sharp lawyer at the phone number or one of the addresses provided on page 2 of this newsletter.