ILCS » Chapter 815 · Act 705
Illinois Compiled Statutes

815 ILCS 705/26 (2026)

Private civil actions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(815 ILCS 705/26) (from Ch. 121 1/2, par. 1726)
    Sec. 26. Private civil actions. Any person who offers, sells, terminates, or fails to renew a franchise in violation of this Act shall be liable to the franchisee who may sue for damages caused thereby. This amendatory Act of 1992 is intended to clarify the existence of a private right of action under existing law with respect to the termination or nonrenewal of a franchise in violation of this Act. In the case of a violation of Section 5, 6, 10, 11, or 15 of the Act, the franchisee may also sue for rescission.
    No franchisee may sue for rescission under this Section 26 who shall fail, within 30 days from the date of receipt thereof, to accept an offer to return the consideration paid or to repurchase the franchise purchased by such person. Every offer provided for in this Section shall be in writing, shall be delivered to the franchisee or sent by certified mail addressed to the franchisee at such person's last known address, shall offer to return any consideration paid or to repurchase the franchise for a price equal to the full amount paid less any net income received by the franchisee, plus the legal rate of interest thereon, and may require the franchisee to return to the person making such offer all unsold goods, equipment, fixtures, leases and similar items received from such person. Such offer shall continue in force for 30 days from the date on which it was received by the franchisee and shall advise the franchisee of such rights and the period of time limited for acceptance thereof. Any agreement not to accept or refusing or waiving any such offer made during or prior to the expiration of said 30 days shall be void.
    The term "franchisee" as used in this Section shall include the personal representative or representatives of the franchisee.
    Every person who directly or indirectly controls a person liable under this Section 26, every partner in a firm so liable, every principal executive officer or director of a corporation so liable, every manager of a limited liability company so liable, every person occupying a similar status or performing similar functions, and every employee of a person so liable, who materially aids in the act or transaction constituting the violation, is also liable jointly and severally with and to the same extent as such person, unless said person who otherwise is liable had no knowledge or reasonable basis to have knowledge of the facts, acts or transactions constituting the alleged violation.
    Every franchisee in whose favor judgment is entered in an action brought under this Section shall be entitled to the costs of the action including, without limitation, reasonable attorney's fees.
(Source: P.A. 96-648, eff. 10-1-09.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1993–2004 · leading case: Jensen v. Quik Int'l, 820 N.E.2d 462 (Ill. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jensen v. Quik Int'l, 820 N.E.2d 462 (Ill. 2004). · cites it 3× “” 815 ILCS 705/26 (West 2002). Because Jensen was domiciled in Illinois, the offer was made in Illinois, and Jensen operated the franchise business from his home in Illinois, Quik was required by section 10 of the Act to be registered with the Illinois Attorney General in order…”
Subway Restaurants, Inc. v. Riggs, 696 N.E.2d 733 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 2× “Buck (federal defendants), alleging fraud in the inducement and seeking damages and rescission under the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act of 1987 (815 ILCS 705/26 (West 1994)), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1 (West 1994)), and…”
To-Am Equip. Co., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Am., Inc., 953 F. Supp. 987 (N.D. Ill. 1997). · cites it 2× “Its authority is 815 ILCS 705/26 ¶ 5: “Every franchisee in whose favor judgment is entered in an action brought under this Section shall be entitled to the costs of the action including, without limitation, reasonable attorney’s fees.”
To-Am Equip. Co. v. Mitsubishi Caterpillar Forklift Am., 913 F. Supp. 1148 (N.D. Ill. 1995). · cites it 2× “There exists no indication that the addition of the comma was meant to work a fundamental change to liability under ¶ 721(3), and we thus hold that ¶ 721(3) liability requires that the defendant “materially aids in the act or transaction constituting the violation.”
In Re O'Shaughnessy, 252 B.R. 722 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2000). “Ovid now contends that it has claims against the Debtor for misrepresentations he made in connection with the franchise agreement between Ovid and Always Open so that the Debtor is hable under the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act, 815 ILCS 705/26; the Illinois Consumer Fraud…”
Sweet Dreams Unlimited, Inc. v. Dial-A-Mattress Int'l, Ltd., 1 F.3d 639 (7th Cir. 1993). “815 ILCS 705/26 (1993). A successful rescission action annuls the contract and returns the parties to the status quo ante.”
Sweet Dreams Unlimited, Inc. v. Dial-A-Mattress Int'l, Ltd., 1 F.3d 639 (7th Cir. 1993). “815 ILCS 705/26 (1993). A successful rescission action annuls the contract and returns the parties to the status quo ante.”
Dudley Enter., Inc. v. Palmer Corp., 832 F. Supp. 221 (N.D. Ill. 1993). “The unamended version of the Act applies in this case since the events which form the basis of plaintiffs’ complaint occurred prior to the 1992 amendments. However, that is not particularly relevant since we previously held that a private cause of action existed under the…”
Jensen v. Quik Int'l (Ill. 2004). · cites it 3× “” 815 ILCS 705/26 (West 2002). Because Jensen was domiciled in Illinois, the offer was made in Illinois, and Jensen operated the franchise business from his home in Illinois, Quik was required by section 10 of the Act to be registered with the Illinois Attorney General in order…”
Subway Restaurants v. Riggs (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “Buck (federal defendants), alleging fraud in the inducement and seeking damages and rescission under the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act of 1987 (815 ILCS 705/26 (West 1994)), the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505/1 (West 1994)), and…”
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.