{
  "id": 753722,
  "name": "Even/Anna Promotions, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Even/Anna Promotions v. State",
  "decision_date": "1998-04-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 95-CC-3033",
  "first_page": "380",
  "last_page": "384",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "50 Ill. Ct. Cl. 380"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 364,
    "char_count": 6062,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.793,
    "sha256": "ba892244da5b4ea8d852d826e162ab3612518e0cf6393cb779b61bce1eb0a2d4",
    "simhash": "1:277a3a4131fefb9d",
    "word_count": 950
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:14:05.502293+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Even/Anna Promotions, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORDER\nRaucci, J.\nThis claim comes before the Court on Claimant Even/ Anna Promotions\u2019 complaint against Respondent, The State of Illinois, Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities for Chicago State University. The complaint alleges breach of contract and seeks damages in the amount of $1,600.\nThe facts adduced at trial are as follows: Vickie Met-nick testified that she is president of Even/Anna Promotions, a promotional business merchandise company. On December 2, 1993, she received a telephone call from an employee at Chicago State University (CSU). Claimant had previously provided merchandise to Respondent. On this occasion, Respondent inquired about Christmas ornaments to be used as gifts at the faculty Christmas party. The Respondent expressed concern about budget and time constraints noting that the party was scheduled for December 19, 1993. Claimant faxed information to Wylola Evans at Chicago State University, including pictures of several different types of ornaments. Although she discussed with Ms. Evans providing a sample, due to the event date, there was not enough time in which to have a sample delivered. Ms. Metnick recommended a brass ornament that could be inexpensively imprinted with the University's logo. Contrary to Ms. Metnick\u2019s recommendation, Chicago State University chose an acrylic ball ornament with a paper or cardboard insert of its logo in the middle. Respondent provided camera-ready copy of its logo, and the industry standardized color chart was used to match the school\u2019s colors. The cost per unit of each ornament was sixty cents. The ornaments were produced by rush order, for which the school was not charged. The ornaments were messengered to the school on December 17, 1993.\nA week after delivery, Ms. Metnick was advised that the ornaments had not been used at the party. She received a telephone call from Wylola Evans who advised, \u201cWe don't like the ornaments and we didn\u2019t use them.\u201d Ms. Metnick testified that there was no mention of any defect in the ornaments and no refusal to pay for the ornaments was initially communicated to her. Ms. Metnick testified that she had numerous discussions with Brian Bochenek at Chicago State University during which Mr. Bochenek assured her that the invoice for $1,600 was going to be paid. However, the payment was never made and the ornaments were returned to Claimant two months after they were received.\nIn February, 1994, Claimant was informed by letter that Chicago State University was claiming that die ornaments were defective and that payment was being refused.\nWhen Claimant received the returned ornaments she noted that only one of the ten boxes had been opened. She described the ornament as having a molded loop at the top for purposes of hanging. Claimant produced a sample of the ornament which was admitted into evidence.\nWylola Evans, Director of Special Events for CSU, testified for the Respondent. Evans stated that she ordered the ornaments but did not use them as gifts at the Christmas party because she determined them to be of inferior quality. Evans testified that they examined quite a few of the ornaments and the \u201choops\u201d kept falling off the ornament and that the imprinted logo looked as though it had been xeroxed. Ms. Evans testified that she contacted the Claimant a week before the party. On February 18, 1994, Respondent sent a letter refusing payment for the ornaments and the. actual ornaments were returned to Claimant some time later.\nThe Respondent produced their departmental report which was admitted into evidence.\nClaimant filed a trial memorandum. Respondent did not file a trial memorandum.\nIn this case it is clear that Respondent placed a special order for 1,000 custom-made Christmas ornaments with the Chicago State University logo. Claimants clear and convincing testimony established she had initially recommended an alternate product, however, Respondent was specific in its order request. In fact, Respondent waived their opportunity to inspect a sample item because they were working under time constraints. The order was promptly delivered to Respondent. In the months following the delivery, CSU\u2019s agent represented that they did not like the product but repeatedly indicated that the invoice would be paid.\nRespondent formally rejected the order by letter approximately two months after delivery and the product was actually returned at some later date. Respondent contends that the product was defective and that the hoops for hanging kept falling off the ornaments.\nRespondents version of the facts is unlikely and incredible. An inspection of a sample ornament showed that the hoop on the ornament was plastic molded into the ornament. It could not fall off without breaking the ornament. Further, when the rejected goods were returned, only one of the ten boxes had been opened and the ornaments were intact.\nClearly Respondent did not \u201clike\u201d the ornament. However, Respondent assumed the risk when, they placed the rush order without an inspection of a sample prior to placing the order.\nClaimant fulfilled all of their obligations under the agreement. Pursuant to Respondent\u2019s custom order, Claimant produced an inexpensive plastic ornament which fully complied with the description and specifications originally provided.\nRespondent failed to reject the product for more than two months after delivery, and the basis for the rejection was not reasonable or supported by the evidence. Respondent breached its agreement by refusing to pay for the items.\nIt is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Claimant is awarded sixteen hundred twenty-five and no/100 ($1,625) in full and complete satisfaction of this claim.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Raucci, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Metnick, Wise, Cherry & Frazier (Kathryn Salt-marsh, of counsel), for Claimant.",
      "James E. Ryan, Attorney General (Suzanne L. Dennis, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 95-CC-3033\nEven/Anna Promotions, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities, Respondent.\nOrder filed April 10, 1998.\nMetnick, Wise, Cherry & Frazier (Kathryn Salt-marsh, of counsel), for Claimant.\nJames E. Ryan, Attorney General (Suzanne L. Dennis, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0380-01",
  "first_page_order": 618,
  "last_page_order": 622
}