Link: Bell v. Ring, 2018 IL App (3d) 170649.
In this Illinois state court appeal, the court discusses the applicability of the “knowing” standard required to support a violation of the Automotive Repair Act, 815 ILCS 306/15, (and the resultant claim allowed under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act). It’s a good discussion of the requirements of the ARA. The court upheld the small court claims finding that the Defendant knowingly violated the ARA when he:
knowingly and intentionally elected not to provide an estimate because he was “too busy” and never sought to obtain a written waiver from Lloyd for the estimate requirement. Instead, defendant chose to rely on his erroneous belief that the work was not covered by the Repair Act and did over $9000 worth of work on Lloyd’s truck without giving Lloyd an estimate and without obtaining prior authorization from Lloyd.