{
  "id": 5808845,
  "name": "Royal Dental Manufacturing, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Royal Dental Manufacturing v. State",
  "decision_date": "1989-01-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 87-CC-4067",
  "first_page": "252",
  "last_page": "254",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "43 Ill. Ct. Cl. 252"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "503 N.E.2d 246",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 Ill. Dec. 689",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. Dec.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "115 Ill. 2d 146",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3180048
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/115/0146-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "402 N.E.2d 599",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Ill. Dec. 597",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. Dec.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "79 Ill. 2d 282",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3070566
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/79/0282-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 260,
    "char_count": 3980,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.871,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37621749376121927
    },
    "sha256": "3a49eeb6f86a6c4438519d3f090e192eb5ea2d57f7762450e6649652b113ff20",
    "simhash": "1:392fe4d4e0af42fc",
    "word_count": 657
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:42.826417+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Royal Dental Manufacturing, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION AND ORDER\nMontana, C.J.\nThe Respondent has moved to dismiss the complaint. In ruling on a motion to dismiss, all facts properly pleaded in the complaint and those contained in exhibits made part of the complaint are to be taken as true for purposes of (and only for the purposes of) the motion. Soules v. General Motors, Corp. (1980), 79 Ill. 2d 282; 37 Ill. Dec. 597; 402 N.E.2d 599.\nAs so construed, the complaint alleges that Claimant was the lowest responsible bidder for certain materials the Respondent wished to purchase under the Illinois Purchasing Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 127, pars. 132.1ff, hereinafter referred to as the \u201cPurchasing Act\u201d.) Instead of awarding the contract to Claimant, the Complaint alleges that Respondent awarded the contract to a bidder which had submitted a higher bid which, Claimant asserts, establishes a violation of the Purchasing Act.\nInitially, we note that the Purchasing Act requires more than the lowest bid. It requires the Respondent to accept the lowest \u201cresponsible\u201d bidder (Section 6a of the Purchasing Act, Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 127, par. 132.6a.), which permits Respondent to consider in its discretion factors other than a low price in determining which bidder should be awarded a contract. (Section 132.6 of the Purchasing Act, Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 127, par. 132.6.) But, we need not decide whether the complaint sets forth sufficient allegations to establish that Respondent abused its discretion in determining that Claimant\u2019s competitor was more \u201cresponsible\u201d than Claimant even though its price was higher. The complaint fails for more basic reasons.\nThe complaint asserts two theories of recovery. The first theory is grounded on section 8(a) of the Court of Claims Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, par. 439.8(a)) which states, in pertinent part, that this Court \u201cshall have exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine * * * [a]ll claims against the State founded upon any law of the State of Illinois * \" Claimant\u2019s argument is that since, in its view, there has been an alleged violation of the Illinois Purchasing Act, this Court can award it damages under section 8(a) of the Court of Claims Act.\nHowever, the Purchasing Act provides no private right of action for damages on the basis of an alleged violation of its provisions. This Court will not imply such a right of action and there is no authority cited or discovered by us that would compel us to do so. Accordingly, we do not accept Claimant\u2019s first theory of recovery based upon section 8(a) of the Court of Claims Act and an alleged violation of the Purchasing Act.\nClaimant\u2019s second theory of recovery is based upon section 8(d) of the Court of Claims Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, par. 489.8(d)) which gives this Court exclusive jurisdiction to hear and determine \u201c[a] 11 claims against the State for damages in cases sounding in tort * * Here, Claimant argues that Respondent\u2019s alleged violation of the Purchasing Act is a tort and, therefore, Claimant is entitled to damages caused by Respondent\u2019s action. We need not decide the merits of Claimant\u2019s doubtful assertion that in this case an alleged violation of the Purchasing Act is a tort. It is sufficient in ruling on this motion to cite the Illinois Supreme Court\u2019s holding in Anderson Electric Inc. v. Ledbetter Erection Corp. (1986), 115 Ill. 2d 146; 104 Ill. Dec. 689; 503 N.E.2d 246. In that case, the Court held that a plaintiff, such as the Claimant here, who seeks recovery of purely economic losses such as profits due to defeated expectations of a commercial transaction, cannot recover in tort. Therefore, Claimant\u2019s second theory of recovery must fail as well.\nAccordingly, it is hereby ordered that Respondent\u2019s motion to dismiss is granted and this claim is dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Montana, C.J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Evans & Dixon, for Claimant.",
      "Reed, Armstrong, Gorman & Coffey, for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 87-CC-4067\nRoyal Dental Manufacturing, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion and order filed January 17, 1989.\nEvans & Dixon, for Claimant.\nReed, Armstrong, Gorman & Coffey, for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0252-01",
  "first_page_order": 364,
  "last_page_order": 366
}