M.J. Oldenstedt Plumbing v. K Mart Corp.

11 Citing cases

  1. Geddes v. Mill Creek Country Club

    196 Ill. 2d 302 (Ill. 2001)   Cited 134 times
    Holding that the plaintiffs were estopped from bringing their claims of intentional trespass and private nuisance based on golf balls entering their property where they previously had agreed to the location of the defendants' fairway

    Equitable estoppel may be defined as the effect of the person's conduct whereby the person is barred from asserting rights that might otherwise have existed against the other party who, in good faith, relied upon such conduct and has been thereby led to change his or her position for the worse. M.J. Oldenstedt Plumbing Co. v. K mart Corp., 257 Ill. App.3d 759, 764 (1994); Byron Community Unit School District No. 226 v. Dunham-Bush, Inc., 215 Ill. App.3d 343, 348 (1991); 18 Ill. L. Prac. Estoppel § 22 (1956). To establish equitable estoppel, the party claiming estoppel must demonstrate that: (1) the other person misrepresented or concealed material facts; (2) the other person knew at the time he or she made the representations that they were untrue; (3) the party claiming estoppel did not know that the representations were untrue when they were made and when they were acted upon; (4) the other person intended or reasonably expected that the party claiming estoppel would act upon the representations; (5) the party claiming estoppel reasonably relied upon the representations in good faith to his or her detriment; and (6) the party claiming estoppel would be prejudiced by his or her reliance on the representations if the other person is permitted to deny the truth thereof.

  2. Hoffman v. Altamore

    352 Ill. App. 3d 246 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004)   Cited 14 times

    In the present case, plaintiff testified that she moved out all of her belongings before September 1, 2002. Defendant, of course, disputes that plaintiff moved out before that date. "When the testimony of witnesses is conflicting, it is within the exclusive province of the trial court, as the trier of fact, to determine the witnesses' credibility and the weight to be given their testimony." M.J. Oldenstedt Plumbing Co. v. Kmart Corp., 257 Ill. App. 3d 759, 766-67 (1994). We cannot say that the trial court erred in believing plaintiff over defendant.

  3. Verizon Connected Solutions v. Starlight Commun. Holding

    CA 02-201ML (D.R.I. Jan. 7, 2004)

    First, exactly what constitutes "workmanlike" performance in a particular circumstance ordinarily is a question of fact. See 17B C.J.S. Contracts § 780; M.J. Oldenstedt Plumbing Co. v. K Mart Corp., 629 N.E.2d 214, 219 (Ill.App. 1994); Previews, Inc. v. Everets, 94 N.E.2d 267, 268 (Mass. 1950)("The law can supply no standard of performance beyond the bare statement of the rule that a contract for services must be performed in a reasonably diligent, skillful, workmanlike, and adequate manner.

  4. Automed Technologies v. Eller

    160 F. Supp. 2d 915 (N.D. Ill. 2001)   Cited 123 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in a lawsuit against former employees, the former employer would be required to "particularize which of its secrets were allegedly misappropriated before [the court would] compel [the employer of the plaintiff's former employees] to reveal its own"

    Moreover, conduct demonstrating assent can make an unsigned contract enforceable, even where the Statute of Frauds requires a writing. SeeM.J. Oldenstedt Pluming Co. v. K Mart Corp., 629 N.E.2d 214, 219 (Ill.App. 3d Dist. 1994). Eller was already subject to the non-competition and non-disclosure provisions from his 1983 employment agreement with Travenol.

  5. Carl A. Haas Automobile Imports, Inc. v. Lola Cars Ltd.

    933 F. Supp. 1381 (N.D. Ill. 1996)   Cited 24 times
    Rejecting as evidence of part performance activity that plaintiff previously engaged in for extensive period of time prior to alleged contract

    "Equitable estoppel is a recognized exception to the statute of frauds" (Bradley Real Estate Trust v. Dolan Assocs. Ltd., 266 Ill. App.3d 709, 713, 203 Ill.Dec. 582, 585, 640 N.E.2d 9, 12 (1st Dist. 1994), citing Ceres Illinois, Inc. v. Illinois Scrap Processing, Inc., 114 Ill.2d 133, 148, 102 Ill.Dec. 379, 385, 500 N.E.2d 1, 7 (1986)). Illinois courts apply equitable estoppel on a showing of these elements (M.J. Oldenstedt Plumbing Co. v. Kmart Corp., 257 Ill.App.3d 759, 764, 195 Ill.Dec. 906, 910, 629 N.E.2d 214, 218 (3d Dist. 1994), citing Vaughn v. Speaker, 126 Ill.2d 150, 162-63, 127 Ill.Dec. 803, 808, 533 N.E.2d 885, 890 (1988) as to the doctrine's ingredients): (1) words or conduct of the party against whom estoppel is alleged, constituting either misrepresentation or concealment of material facts; (2) knowledge on the part of the party against whom estoppel is asserted that the representations were untrue; (3) the party claiming the benefit of estoppel must not have known the representations were false either at the time they were made or at the time they were acted upon; (4) the party estopped must either intend or expect that his conduct or representations will be acted upon by the party asserting estoppel; (5) the party claiming the benefit of estoppel must have relied or acted upon the representations; and (6) the party claiming the benefit of estoppel must be in a position of prejudice if the party against whom estoppel is alleged is permitted to deny the truth of the representations made. Fraudule

  6. Industrial Specialty Chemicals v. Cummins Engine

    918 F. Supp. 1173 (N.D. Ill. 1996)   Cited 8 times
    Dismissing equitable estoppel claim where the plaintiff did not "offer any evidence suggesting that the defendants tricked it into not getting the agreement in writing"

    To prevail on a claim of equitable estoppel a plaintiff must prove (1) a misrepresentation or concealment of material fact, (2) the defendant's knowledge that the representations were false, (3) the defendant's intent or expectation that the representations be acted upon by the plaintiff, (4) actual reliance by the plaintiff, and (5) some injury or prejudice to the plaintiff if the defendant is allowed to deny the truth of the representations. See Bradley Real Estate, 203 Ill.Dec. at 585, 640 N.E.2d at 12; M.J. Oldenstedt Plumbing Co. v. K mart Corp., 257 Ill. App.3d 759, 629 N.E.2d 214, 218 (1994). Although the representation or conduct at issue need not be "fraudulent in the strict legal sense or done with an intent to mislead or deceive," the plaintiff must still demonstrate that "conscience and the duty of honest dealing" requires the defendant to be bound by its representations.

  7. In re Midway Airlines, Inc.

    180 B.R. 851 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1995)   Cited 13 times

    Buczak v. Central Sav. Loan Ass'n, 230 Ill. App.3d 490, 500, 171 Ill. Dec. 771, 777, 594 N.E.2d 1291, 1297 (1st Dist. 1992); Northern Trust, 109 Ill.App.3d at 439, 65 Ill.Dec. at 117, 440 N.E.2d at 972; Combined Network, 805 F.2d at 1297 ("[E]quitable estoppel requires proof of misrepresentation. Fraud differs in that it requires proof of an intent to harm."); M.J. Oldenstedt Plumbing Co. v. K-Mart Corp., 257 Ill. App.3d 759, 764, 195 Ill.Dec. 906, 910, 629 N.E.2d 214, 218 (3d Dist. 1994) ("Fraudulent intent is not necessary to estoppel."). 20. "[E]ven in the absence of a confidential relationship, estoppel may be based on conduct consisting of a failure to disclose plus an affirmative statement or act which, together, mislead the party claiming estoppel."

  8. Anderson v. Dickerson

    2016 Ill. App. 4th 150711 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    That is, the contractor can recover reasonable compensation for the work completed minus any damages caused by the breach. M.J. Oldenstedt Plumbing Co., Inc. v. Kmart Corp., 257 Ill. App. 3d 759, 767-68, 629 N.E.2d 214, 220 (1994). "A party seeking recovery on a quantum meruit theory must demonstrate the performance of services by the party, the conferral of the benefit of those services on the party from whom recovery is sought, and the unjustness of the latter party's retention of the benefit in the absence of any compensation."

  9. Decatur Earthmover Credit Union v. Corman

    2016 Ill. App. 4th 150391 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016)

    "When the testimony of witnesses is conflicting, it is within the exclusive province of the trial court, as the trier of fact [in a bench trial], to determine the witnesses' credibility and the weight to be given their testimony." M.J. Oldenstedt Plumbing Co. v. Kmart Corp., 257 Ill. App. 3d 759, 766-67, 629 N.E.2d 214, 219 (1994). We will not preempt the trial court's duty in this regard.

  10. City of Rockford v. Suski

    307 Ill. App. 3d 233 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999)   Cited 16 times

    The purpose of the equitable estoppel doctrine is to prevent a party from taking advantage of his own wrongdoing. M.J. Oldenstedt Plumbing Co. v. K Mart Corp., 257 Ill. App.3d 759, 764 (1994). In this case, Suski's invocation of the doctrine of equitable estoppel is misplaced. Suski presented no clear evidence that the City represented to him that it would not seek the enforcement of the trial court's July 30, 1981, order.