{
  "id": 3407028,
  "name": "MARVIN ROMANSKI et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PRAIRIE FARMER et al., Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Romanski v. Farmer",
  "decision_date": "1977-12-13",
  "docket_number": "No. 76-431",
  "first_page": "185",
  "last_page": "191",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "55 Ill. App. 3d 185"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 577,
    "char_count": 12763,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.896,
    "sha256": "f5262923a3a6a20326e026999cbb6b89e97cc2fa48e92c879f72abd47f3ad293",
    "simhash": "1:ad6b6d1316f2e0e9",
    "word_count": 2025
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:20:02.730807+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "MARVIN ROMANSKI et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PRAIRIE FARMER et al., Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE RECHENMACHER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal from the order of the circuit court of De Kalb County dismissing the plaintiffs\u2019 complaint with prejudice as to Prairie Farmer, for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted.\nThe plaintiffs are two farmers who ordered a prefabricated steel building advertised in the defendant newspaper from Modular Steel Structures, Inc., Wonder Building Division, Kansas City, Missouri. The advertisement stated the price for the complete building (not including foundation) was *4,634 FOB Chicago, Illinois. Pursuant to this advertisement the plaintiffs contacted Modular Steel Structures, Inc. and on March 11,1974, entered into a contract with them for a building 49 feet by 80 feet, for the advertised price. The plaintiffs paid a security deposit of *2,272.20 and obtained a tentative delivery date of July 22,1974. In the meantime, they constructed a foundation for the anticipated building. The building was not delivered on the date tentatively agreed upon and on September 11,1974, the plaintiffs wrote to Prairie Farmer, stating that they had answered an advertisement in the Prairie Farmer, pursuant to which they had ordered a prefabricated steel building from Wonder Building Division; that they made a deposit of *2,272.20, but had not received the building. Prairie Farmer\u2019s help was requested in obtaining delivery of the building.\nThe basis of the plaintiffs\u2019 appeal to Prairie Farmer was an alleged \u201cguarantee\u201d in the form of a published statement appearing in each issue of Prairie Farmer which reads as follows:\n\u201cPRAIRIE FARMER refuses to publish dishonest advertising. We guarantee our cooperation to subscribers in obtaining fair treatment and reasonable adjustments from advertisers in case any misunderstandings arise, providing subscribers mention Prairie Farmer, when writing to advertisers.\u201d\nPrairie Farmer acknowledged receipt of this letter on September 30, explained that the employee who would handle the complaint was on vacation and that they would hear from her shortly. A notation in Prairie Farmer\u2019s file indicates this was followed up on October 17, by Miss Serpico, the employee referred to, with a telephone call to Mr. Sauter and that she told Mrs. Sauter that they were doing everything possible and would keep her posted and suggesting that Mr. Sauter retain an attorney. Notes on the file indicate Miss Serpico made further inquiries of Modular Technology Corporation, the actual manufacturer of Wonder Buildings in Chicago. On October 29,1974, Miss Serpico sent a list of persons who had complained to Prairie Farmer about Modular Steel Structures to that company and asked them to keep her posted. The file indicates she followed this up with a call to a Mr. Miller, an employee of Modular Technology Corporation, calling his attention to the Romanski-Sauter order and was informed that the building was almost ready. This was followed up by other calls on October 29 and November 4, at which time Miss Serpico was informed, according to her notes, that the factory was \u201cworking on it.\u201d On October 29, Miss Serpico wrote to the dealer and advertiser, Modular Steel Structures, in Kansas City, and sent them a list of customers who had complained to Prairie Farmer about buildings not being delivered.\nOn November 25,1974, Miss Serpico advised the plaintiffs she had been informed that the manufacturer could not deliver the buildings at the advertised price and a refund of the deposit was not available. She suggested that they consult with an attorney and also that they might seek assistance from the Attorney General\u2019s Office. At this time she gave the plaintiffs the name and address of the Consumer Fraud Division in Springfield, Illinois, and also in Jefferson City, Missouri. She asked that a copy of any letters so addressed by the plaintiffs be furnished to her. The office copy of this letter carries the notation \u201cno reply as of 5/5/75.\u201d\nAt the same time Miss Serpico addressed a detailed letter to Attorney General Scott oudining and summarizing the situation and listing the particular complainants involved. Another letter addressed to Attorney General Scott\u2019s office dated February 20, 1975, indicates no reply was received to her letter of November 25. The letter of February 20 made further inquiry as to the status of the matter. On the same day a follow-up letter was written to the plaintiffs inquiring whether they had taken any further action as suggested in Miss Serpico\u2019s letter of November 25,1974.\nOn February 26, 1975, Attorney General Scott\u2019s office acknowledged the letter of February 20, 1975, and advised Miss Serpico that numerous complaints had been filed against Modular Steel Structures, Inc., and that an investigation was being launched by his office. On November 10,1975, a notation concerning a telephone call made by Miss Serpico to Modular Steel Structures indicates it was engaged in a Chapter XI reorganization. This was followed up by Miss Serpico\u2019s subsequent telephone calls to Modular Steel Structures on March 11 and April 7, 20 and 27, 1976.\nIn February of 1976, the plaintiffs filed suit against Prairie Farmer, Modular Steel Structures, Inc. (Wonder Building Division\u2014the dealer), and Modular Technology Corporation\u2014the manufacturer. The complaint is in four divisions designated \u201cFirst Cause of Action,\u201d \u201cSecond Cause of Action,\u201d etc., aggregating 26 paragraphs. However, the heart of the complaint, so far as the defendant, Prairie Farmer, is concerned, is contained in paragraphs 2, 3, and 4 of the \u201cFirst Cause of Action,\u201d the gist of which is that (1) the defendant, Prairie Farmer, carried an advertisement stating that a Wonder Steel Building, size 49 feet by 80 feet, could be purchased from the defendant, Modular Steel Structures, for *4,634; (2) that these representations were false, \u201cand known to be false by the defendant, Prairie Farmer at the time they were made\u201d; (3) that Prairie Farmer regularly carried the printed statement quoted above in its newspaper; (4) that the quoted statement regarding their advertising induced the plaintiffs to enter into a contract with the defendants, Modular Steel Structures, Inc. and Modular Technology Corporation, whereby the plaintiffs were defrauded of their deposit and suffered the expense of providing a useless foundation.\nThe legal theory of the plaintiffs\u2019 case against Prairie Farmer is not clear from the complaint\u2014that is, whether it has its basis in fraud or in contract on a theory of guarantee, but it appears from the answer to the motion to dismiss the complaint that the case against Prairie Farmer is based on the theory of guarantee. In their answer to the motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs state that \u201cplaintiffs based their suit on the defendant Prairie Fanners guarantee that \u2018Prairie Farmer refused to publish dishonest advertising/ \u201d Since the plaintiffs in their pleadings and briefs have set forth the theory of their case as being founded on the \u201cguarantee\u201d in the statement quoted above, this appeal from the ruling on the motion to dismiss must be resolved on that basis.\nWe might remark at the outset that we do not think that the word \u201cguarantee,\u201d as used in the Prairie Farmer statement, was intended to have the legal significance which has developed in connection with the law of sales, where it has reference to the quality or performance of tangible things. As used here, we think it means a legally binding obligation to do the things set out after the word \u201cguarantee,\u201d but no more than that.\nThe plaintiffs\u2019 case thus depends entirely upon the legal effect of the defendant\u2019s printed statement, i.e., \u201cPrairie Farmer refuses to publish dishonest advertising.\u201d Plaintiffs\u2019 case is based on the theory that since the statement was followed by the language, \u201cWe guarantee our cooperation to subscribers in obtaining fair treatment and reasonable adjustments from advertisers in case any misunderstandings arise \u00b0 * that the statement preceding the word \u201cguarantee\u201d is included in the guarantee, and furthermore, that any failure of an advertiser to perform in accordance with the advertisement constitutes \u201cdishonest advertising.\u201d\nIt is our opinion that the first sentence in the quoted paragraph is not a guarantee. It is followed by a guarantee, but is not included in the guarantee. We cannot regard it as any more than an expression of policy and the \u201cguarantee\u201d following that first sentence is merely an affirmation of that policy, to a specific pledge or guarantee of assistance to the subscribers of Prairie Farmer who believe they were deceived or defrauded by an advertisement appearing in that publication. The statement \u201cPrairie Farmer refuses to publish dishonest advertising\u201d must be understood not as a warranty or guarantee that there will be no dishonest advertising in that publication, but rather that where an advertisement is known or thought to be dishonest, publication of it will be refused. But the advertisement or the contract offered thereby or the thing advertised, are not guaranteed \u2014 only the policy set forth following the word \u201cguarantee\u201d is guaranteed. That is to say, it is guaranteed in the sense that Prairie Farmer will hold itself answerable for the carrying out of the announced policy.\nThe plaintiffs do not allege that the defendant did not carry out its promise to cooperate with and assist the plaintiffs as subscribers to Prairie Farmer in attempting to obtain satisfaction from the advertiser. If such allegation had been made, however, it would be easily refuted by the evidence supplied by the defendant by way of exhibits and affidavits attached to its motion to dismiss which amply demonstrate the effort Prairie Farmer made (as we cited above in this opinion in some detail) to carry out its undertaking to assist the plaintiffs in their difficulties. We think the defendant amply demonstrated its good faith in carrying out that \u201cpolicy.\u201d\nMoreover, it is by no means certain that at the time the advertisement in question created the inquiry by the plaintiffs leading eventually to the unfortunate contract, that the advertisement itself was dishonest. It appears from the affidavits and exhibits of correspondence and notes of telephone conversations in the Prairie Farmer file that the cause of Modular Steel Structures\u2019 default was the development of an unexpected financial crisis, brought on, or at least contributed to, by a sudden increase in steel prices. The advertisement which induced the contract appeared no later than March of 1974\u2014possibly earlier. A plea for assistance was made by the plaintiffs in their letter of September 11, 1974, but it did not hint of dishonesty or fraud, rather it solicited Prairie Farmer\u2019s help in expediting delivery of the building and insisted the contract be performed. Whether the advertisers were dishonest or merely financially vulnerable at the time the advertisement appeared in Prairie Farmer is a matter of speculation. It cannot be assumed, as the plaintiffs have done, that because Modular Technology Corporation developed financial troubles which eventually prevented them from completing the contract, that the advertisement of March 1974, or earlier, was a dishonest advertisement in the sense that it was fraudulent.\nNor can the plaintiffs\u2019 argument that printing a statement promising to police its advertisers made Prairie Farmer thereby liable to inquire into the financial condition of its advertisers, before accepting their advertisements, be sustained. Such an interpretation would go far beyond what is customary, practicable, or even possible for a newspaper to do and far beyond what its quoted statement obligated it to do. We feel the statement merely indicated a conscientious attitude on the part of Prairie Farmer toward its subscribers.\nIn our opinion, the statement \u201cPrairie Farmer refuses to accept dishonest advertising,\u201d followed by a \u201cguarantee\u201d to assist a subscriber to get satisfactory adjustment from its advertisers, if there was difficulty, does not sustain an action at law against Prairie Farmer, based on failure by the advertiser to perform a specific contract. Whatever was promised by way of guarantee or warranty by Prairie Farmer was amply demonstrated to have been performed and there was no liability on Prairie Farmer\u2019s part to do more.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of De Kalb County is therefore affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nBOYLE and WOODWARD, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE RECHENMACHER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Anna D. Marek, of Ontarioville, for appellants.",
      "Carol R. Thigpen, of Jenner & Block, of Chicago, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "MARVIN ROMANSKI et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PRAIRIE FARMER et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nSecond District\nNo. 76-431\nOpinion filed December 13, 1977.\nAnna D. Marek, of Ontarioville, for appellants.\nCarol R. Thigpen, of Jenner & Block, of Chicago, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0185-01",
  "first_page_order": 207,
  "last_page_order": 213
}