# Check v. Clifford Chrysler-Plymouth of Buffalo Grove, Inc.

> Appellate Court of Illinois · June 13, 2003 · 342 Ill. App. 3d 150

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9720783

## Case

- **Full name:** ERIC CHECK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CLIFFORD CHRYSLER-PLYMOUTH OF BUFFALO GROVE, INC., Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Appellate Court of Illinois
- **Decided:** June 13, 2003
- **Citations:** 342 Ill. App. 3d 150; 276 Ill. Dec. 579; 794 N.E.2d 829; 51 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (West) 974; 2003 Ill. App. LEXIS 754
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Quinn
- **Judges:** Campbell, Quinn, Reid
- **Cited by:** 34 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9720783

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding under the Magnuson- Moss Act ( 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. (1994)) and the Consumer Fraud Act, the case should be remanded to the circuit court for plaintiff to petition for additional fees because she had to defend the judgment on appeal and remained the prevailing party
- finding under the Magnuson-Moss Act (15 U.S.C. §2301 et seq. (1994)) and the Consumer Fraud Act, the case should be remanded to the circuit court for plaintiff to petition for additional fees because she had to defend the judgment on appeal and remained the prevailing party

## Opinion text

JUSTICE QUINN, specially concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur with the majority in every respect other than as to the issue of whether the jury’s verdicts were inconsistent. The jury’s verdicts that Clifford did not violate the Illinois Motor Vehicle Franchise Act but did commit common law fraud do not necessarily conflict with one another. The jury could have found all of the elements of common law fraud were proven but that the damage sustained prior to delivery of the vehicle had a value which was less than 6% of the manufacturer’s suggested retail price of the vehicle. Indeed, the majority of the evidence presented at trial would support this conclusion. As the verdicts on these two counts are supported by a reasonable hypothesis, they are not “absolutely irreconcilable” and therefore the verdicts are not legally inconsistent. See Tedeschi v. Burlington Northern R.R. Co., 282 Ill. App. 3d 445, 448-49 , 668 N.E.2d 138, 140 (1996).
While I would reverse the trial court’s holding that the jury verdicts are inconsistent, I concur with the majority that plaintiff is entitled to have only one satisfaction for his injury. Therefore, I concur in all remaining aspects of the majority’s opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9720783. Public record. Not legal advice.