Under the act, plaintiff must prove "(1) a deceptive act or practice by the defendant, (2) the defendant's intent that the plaintiff rely on the deception, (3) the occurrence of the deception in the course of conduct involving trade or commerce, and (4) actual damage to the plaintiff (5) proximately caused by the deception." Oliveira v. Amoco Oil Co. , 201 Ill. 2d 134, 149, 267 Ill.Dec. 14, 776 N.E.2d 151 (2002) ; see Capiccioni v. Brennan Naperville, Inc. , 339 Ill. App. 3d 927, 938, 274 Ill.Dec. 461, 791 N.E.2d 553 (2003) (Under the act, plaintiff does not have to show he or she relied on defendant's actions). Nowhere does the act contain a requirement for reliance in misrepresentation cases.

¶ 39 It is understood that misrepresentations or mistakes of law cannot form the basis of a claim for fraud. Yates , 200 Ill. at 206, 65 N.E. 726 ; Elston , 40 Ill. at 518-19 ; Kupper v. Powers , 2017 IL App (3d) 160141, ¶ 53, 410 Ill.Dec. 759, 71 N.E.3d 347 ; McCarthy v. Pointer , 2013 IL App (1st) 121688, ¶ 17, 378 Ill.Dec. 287, 3 N.E.3d 852 ; Capiccioni v. Brennan Naperville, Inc. , 339 Ill. App. 3d 927, 933, 274 Ill.Dec. 461, 791 N.E.2d 553 (2003). An erroneous conclusion of the legal effect of known facts constitutes a mistake of law and not of fact.

Generally, a deceptive representation of law does not constitute a violation of the ICFA because both parties are presumed to be equally capable of knowing and interpreting the law. See generally Capiccioni v. Brennan Naperville, Inc., 339 Ill.App.3d 927, 933 (2003); Randels v. Best Real Estate, Inc., 243 Ill.App.3d 801, 805 (1993). The test is whether the misrepresentation could have been discovered by merely reviewing the applicable law.

Under Illinois law, the elements the plaintiffs need to satisfy in order to establish common law fraud are: "(1) a false statement of a material fact; (2) defendant's knowledge that the statement was false; (3) defendant's intent that the statement induce plaintiff to act; (4) plaintiff's reliance upon the truth of the statement; and (5) plaintiff's damages resulting from reliance on the statement." Capiccioni v. Brennan Naperville, Inc., 339 Ill.App.3d 927, 274 Ill.Dec. 461, 791 N.E.2d 553, 558 (2003). While the Davises also allege the mutual mistake exception to the parol evidence rule before this court, that argument was not made before the district court at summary judgment.

The elements of a claim under the ICFA are "(1) a deceptive act or practice by the defendant; (2) the defendant's intent that the plaintiff rely on the deception; (3) the occurrence of the deception in the course of conduct involving trade and commerce; and (4) actual damage to the plaintiff (5) proximately caused by the deception." Capiccioni v. Brennan Naperville, Inc., 339 Ill.App.3d 927, 933, 791 N.E.2d 553, 555 (2003).

For both, it is “enough to allege that the defendant committed a deceptive or unfair act and intended that the plaintiff rely on that act.” Wigod v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 673 F.3d 547, 575 (7th Cir. 2012). This is so because even “innocent misrepresentations or omissions intended to induce the plaintiff's reliance are actionable under [ICFA].” Capiccioni v. Brennan Naperville, 791 N.E.2d 553, 558 (Ill.App.Ct. 2003). As such, for purposes of the “intent” requirement, it does not matter whether Advocate “intentionally misled Plaintiff in any way, ” [20] at 4.

¶ 49 The elements of common-law fraud are: (1) a false statement of material fact; (2) the defendant's knowledge that the statement was false; (3) the defendant's intent that the statement induce plaintiff to act; (4) the plaintiff's reliance upon the truth of the statement; and (5) the plaintiff's damages resulting from reliance on the statement. Connick v. Suzuki Motor Co., 174 Ill.2d 482, 496 (1996); Capiccioni v. Brennan Naperville, Inc., 339 Ill.App.3d 927, 933 (2003). In the context of common law fraud, the law presumes that transactions are fair and honest; fraud is not presumed.

"Negligent misrepresentation consists of: (1) a false statement of a material fact; (2) carelessness or negligence in ascertaining the truth of the statement by the party making it; (3) an intention to induce the other party to act; (4) action by the other party in reliance on the truth of the statement; and (5) damage to the other party resulting from such reliance when the party making the statement is under a duty to communicate accurate information." Capiccioni v. Brennan Naperville, Inc., 339 Ill. App. 3d 927, 938, 274 Ill.Dec. 461, 791 N.E.2d 553 (2003).

Capiccioni v. Brennan Naperville, Inc., 339 Ill.App.3d 927, 938 (2003). ¶ 37 To establish a negligent misrepresentation claim, "[t]he defendant need not know that the statement is false."

815 ILCS 505/10(a) (West 2006); see Fandel v. Allen, 398 Ill.App.3d 177, 187 (2010). The elements of a claim under the ICFA are (1) a deceptive act or practice by the defendant (2) in the course of conduct involving trade and commerce, (3) the defendant's intent that plaintiff rely on the deception, and (4) actual damage to plaintiff (5) proximately caused by the deception. Capiccioni v. Brennan Naperville, Inc., 339 Ill.App.3d 927, 933 (2003). ¶ 16 Plaintiff alleges that defendants violated the ICFA by misrepresenting to purchasers of notary services that clerical services would be and/or were performed when such services were not requested and not performed.