Illinois Compiled Statutes
815 ILCS 505/2C (2026)
If the furnishing of merchandise, whether under purchase order or a contract of sale, is conditioned on the consumer's providing credit references or having a credit rating acceptable to the seller and the seller rejects the credit application of that consumer, the seller must return to the consumer any down payment, whether such down payment is in the form of money, goods, chattels or otherwise, made under that purchase order or contract and may not retain any part thereof
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(815 ILCS 505/2C)
(from Ch. 121 1/2, par. 262C)
Sec. 2C.
If the furnishing of merchandise, whether under purchase order or
a contract of sale, is conditioned on the consumer's providing credit
references or having a credit rating acceptable to the seller and the
seller rejects the credit application of that consumer, the seller must
return to the consumer any down payment, whether such down payment is in
the form of money, goods, chattels or otherwise, made under that purchase
order or contract and may not retain any part thereof. The retention by the
seller of part or all of the down payment, whether such down payment is in
the form of money, goods, chattels or otherwise, under those circumstances
as a fee for investigating the credit of the consumer or as liquidated
damages to cover depreciation of the merchandise which was the subject of
the purchase order or contract or for any other purpose is an unlawful
practice within the meaning of this Act, whether that fee or those charges
are claimed from the down payment, whether such down payment is in the form
of money, goods, chattels or otherwise, or made as a separate charge to the
consumer.
(Source: Laws 1967, p. 2143.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 7
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2003–2022 · leading case: Bates v. William Chevrolet/Geo, Inc., 785 N.E.2d 53 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003).
Bates v. William Chevrolet/Geo, Inc., 785 N.E.2d 53 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “PRESIDING JUSTICE O’BRIEN delivered the opinion of the court: Plaintiff, Miyoshi Bates, filed a two-count complaint alleging that defendant engaged in common-law fraud and violated section 2C of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Consumer Fraud…”
Jones v. William Buick, Inc., 785 N.E.2d 910 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “JUSTICE McNULTY delivered the opinion of the court: The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Act) (815 ILCS 505/2C (West 1996)) mandates that a prospective merchandise purchaser seeking credit approval from the seller must receive a complete refund of…”
Hamilton v. O'Connor Chevrolet, Inc., 399 F. Supp. 2d 860 (N.D. Ill. 2005). “815 ILCS 505/2C (“Section 2C”). The Hamiltons claim that their credit application was rejected when O’Connor asked them to come in and execute the new Retail Contract with a higher interest rate, and therefore O’Connor violated Section 2C in failing to return the $2,000 down…”
Owners Ins. Co. v. Don McCue Chevrolet, Inc., 2022 IL App (2d) 210634 (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “” 815 ILCS 505/2C (West 2020). ¶5 The complaint further alleged that (1) Salas’s purchase of the new truck was “akin to all consumers’ actions and thus concern[ed] all consumers,” (2) the insured’s “refusal to adhere to the mandates of the [Act] involve[d] consumer protection…”
Alma Lasers, Inc. v. Yigazu Isthetics, Inc., 2021 IL App (1st) 191894-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “” 815 ILCS 505/2C (West 2018). - 30 - No. 1-19-1894 However, the deposits that were not returned and that were the subject of Count I of defendant’s counterclaims were for the earlier two systems, where defendant’s credit applications were not rejected.”
Bates v. William Chevrolet/GEO, Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “A jury trial was conducted on the common-law fraud count, and the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $1,060 in compensatory damages and $7,500 in punitive damages.”
Owners Ins. Co. v. Don McCue Chevrolet, Inc, 2022 IL App (2d) 210634-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “” 815 ILCS 505/2C (West 2020). -2- 2022 IL App (2d) 210634-U ¶6 The complaint further alleged that (1) Salas’s purchase of the new truck was “akin to all consumers’ actions and thus concern[ed] all consumers,” (2) the insured’s “refusal to adhere to the mandates of the [Act]…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.
|