ILCS » Chapter 815 · Act 705
Illinois Compiled Statutes

815 ILCS 705/27 (2026)

Periods of limitation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(815 ILCS 705/27) (from Ch. 121 1/2, par. 1727)
    Sec. 27. Periods of limitation. No action shall be maintained under Section 26 of this Act to enforce any liability created by this Act unless brought before the expiration of 3 years after the act or transaction constituting the violation upon which it is based, the expiration of one year after the franchisee becomes aware of facts or circumstances reasonably indicating that he may have a claim for relief in respect to conduct governed by this Act, or 90 days after delivery to the franchisee of a written notice disclosing the violation, whichever shall first expire. No cause of action barred under existing law on the effective date of this Act shall be revived by this Act. Every cause of action under this Act survives the death of any person who might have been a plaintiff or defendant.
(Source: P.A. 85-551.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2001–2004 · leading case: Lama v. Preskill, 818 N.E.2d 443 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lama v. Preskill, 818 N.E.2d 443 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 4× “We agree with the trial court that defendant was entitled to Carden's documents relating to when plaintiff learned of her injury.”
7-Eleven, Inc. v. Dar, 757 N.E.2d 515 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “The arbitrator determined that because the agreement provided a shorter limitations period than did the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act of 1987 (815 ILCS 705/27 (West 1998)) (Act), it was ineffectual.”
Jensen v. Quik Int'l, 820 N.E.2d 462 (Ill. 2004). “” 815 ILCS 705/27 (West 2002). The time limits imposed by sections 26 and 27 on the franchisee’s right to seek rescission further demonstrate that registration is not a condition precedent to an enforceable franchise agreement.”
7-Eleven, Inc. v. Dar, 748 N.E.2d 642 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 2× “The arbitrator determined that because the agreement provided a shorter limitations period than did the Illinois Franchise Disclosure Act of 1987 (815 ILCS 705/27 (West 1998)) (Act), it was ineffectual.”
Lama v. Preskill (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “We agree with the trial court that defendant was entitled to Carden's documents relating to when plaintiff learned of her injury.”
Jensen v. Quik Int'l (Ill. 2004). “” 815 ILCS 705/27 (West 2002). The time limits imposed by sections 26 and 27 on the franchisee’s right to seek rescission further demonstrate that registration is not a condition precedent to an enforceable franchise agreement.”
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.