Opinion
No. 01 C 5878
October 2, 2001
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plastech Engineered Products, Inc. ("Plastech") has filed its Answer and Affirmative Defense ("AD") to the Complaint brought against it by Joseph T. Ryerson Son, Inc. ("Ryerson"). Because Plastech's response appears seriously problematic in one respect, this memorandum order is issued sua sponte to require Plastech's counsel to amplify on the rationale for what is set out in its Answer ¶¶ 6 and 7 and its AD.
Each of those facets of Plastech's responsive pleading rests on the premise that the document captioned "Attached Addendum" (Complaint Ex. 2, here simply "Addendum") was not part of the contractual arrangement between the parties established by a typed letter agreement that carries an original typing date of December 4, 1998 and was then fully executed on December 17, 1998 (Complaint Ex. 1). Indeed, because Plastech's AD advances a Statute of Frauds argument on the basis that the Addendum "was not signed by an authorized agent," that necessarily depends on a contention that Kelly Garwood ("Garwood"), whose signature appears on the Addendum on Plastech's behalf and who also signed the name of Plastech's Corporate Senior Buyer Gary Bone ("Bone") on that document lacked the authority to do so.
That contention frankly seems suspect. This Court's examination of the admittedly-binding letter agreement itself (Complaint Ex. 1) reveals that document to have been signed both by Bone and by Garwood — and Garwood's December 17, 1998 signature was accompanied by his or her initialling on Plastech's behalf of a change in the body of the letter agreement from a December 1, 1998 effective date (the original typewritten version) to January 1, 1999. And December 17, 1998 was the selfsame date on which both Ryerson's authorized signatory and Garwood — who purportedly did so on Plastech's behalf — signed the Addendum. Thus it appears that the final signature on the letter agreement and the Addendum were affixed at the very same time.
Plastech's confirmation of the validity of the letter agreement would thus seem to carry with it a confirmation of Garwood s authority.
Under those circumstances Plastech owes Ryerson and this Court a considerably more probative explanation than its present bald denial of authorization of the Addendum. Accordingly Plastech's counsel is ordered to file in this Court's chambers on or before October 16, 2001 (with a copy delivered contemporaneously to Ryerson's counsel) a memorandum explaining the underpinning for its AD and for the corresponding provisions of Answer ¶¶ 6 and 7. In the absence of such a timely filing, all of those aspects of Plastech's responsive pleading will be stricken, and Plastech will be deemed to have admitted Complaint ¶¶ 6 and 7.