NOTICE 2026 IL App (4th) 250478-U This Order was filed under FILED Supreme Court Rule 23 and is May 7, 2026 not precedent except in the NO. 4-25-0478 Carla Bender limited circumstances allowed 4th District Appellate under Rule 23(e)(1). IN THE APPELLATE COURT Court, IL
OF ILLINOIS
FOURTH DISTRICT
CRAIG HART, ) Appeal from the Plaintiff-Appellant, ) Circuit Court of v. ) Rock Island County MD RACING, INC., an Illinois Corporation, ) No. 24SC1851 Defendant-Appellee. ) ) Honorable ) Clayton R. Lee, ) Judge Presiding.
PRESIDING JUSTICE STEIGMANN delivered the judgment of the court. Justices Grischow and Harris concurred in the judgment.
ORDER
¶1 Held: The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment in favor of defendant in which the trial court concluded, after a bench trial, that plaintiff had failed to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence.
¶2 In November 2024, plaintiff, Craig Hart, filed a small claims complaint against
defendant, MD Racing, Inc. (MD Racing), alleging that MD Racing breached a service contract
to repair Hart’s motorcycle. After a bench trial, the trial court found in favor of MD Racing,
concluding that Hart failed to meet his burden of proof.
¶3 Hart appeals, arguing the trial court erred by (1) failing to consider various
provisions of the Automotive Repair Act (815 ILCS 306/1 et seq. (West 2022)) and (2) finding
he did not meet his burden of proof when he showed that MD Racing performed repairs that
were not listed in the contract and overcharged for those repairs. We disagree and affirm.
¶4 I. BACKGROUND ¶5 A. The Complaint
¶6 In November 2024, Hart filed a small claims complaint against MD Racing,
alleging that MD Racing overcharged and performed unauthorized repairs pursuant to a service
contract to repair Hart’s motorcycle. Hart further alleged that MD Racing’s repairs did not meet
“workmanlike standards,” requiring Hart to pay a different repair shop to put the motorcycle in
working order. Hart specified which services were performed that he did not authorize, as well as
which parts and labor he believed were unnecessary and overpriced, although he did not state by
how much. Hart claimed MD Racing owed him $3,543.49 in damages.
¶7 Hart attached a copy of the service contract to the complaint. The contract was
dated March 15, 2022, and was signed by both Hart and Matt Drucker, who signed as president
of MD Racing. (We note that Drucker appeared in court on behalf of MD Racing, as authorized
by Illinois Supreme Court Rule 282(b) (eff. Jan. 1, 2018), and proceeded pro se throughout the
proceedings.)
¶8 The first section of the contract provided, “Subject to the terms and conditions
herein, [MD Racing] agrees to provide motorcycle service and or repairs as fully described on
Exhibit A (the ‘Services’).” Exhibit A appeared immediately after the signature lines and
contained handwritten notes that provided as follows:
“Description of the Work & Documentation of work
Bike does not run with any throttle
Clean carbs—replace parts as needed
Carbs may have sticky floats
***
take a look coolant rese[r]voir tank
-2- Customer is going to take care of a front brake caliper issue
get new plugs”
The contract also included (1) a limited 30-day warranty, (2) an integration clause, and (3) a no
oral modifications clause.
¶9 B. The Bench Trial
¶ 10 In February 2025, the trial court conducted a bench trial on Hart’s complaint. The
parties waived opening statements.
¶ 11 1. Plaintiff’s Case-in-Chief
¶ 12 a. John Babb
¶ 13 John Babb testified that he was a technician for Brenny’s Motorcycle Clinic
(Brenny’s), a motorcycle repair shop in Bettendorf, Iowa, and he had worked there since March
1996. Babb performed repair work on the carburetors of Hart’s motorcycle and identified two
photos he took of those carburetors while performing those repairs, which were admitted into
evidence without objection.
¶ 14 According to Babb, the first photo showed “[t]he internal workings of a half a
rack of carburetors,” specifically, “[t]he bottom side of a carburetor for a V-Max.” Babb testified
that the green stains and residue on the carburetor parts should not be there and would not be
there after an ultrasonic bath to clean the parts. Babb explained that the stains and residue were
caused by bad fuel or fuel additives. When asked how long it would take for the green stains and
residue to come back after being cleaned, Babb answered, “It depends on the state of the fuel.”
He continued, “I’ve seen carbs go bad in a matter of weeks depending on the state of [the] fuel.”
¶ 15 The second photo showed “a pair of motion tubes from the carburetors,” one that
Babb had cleaned and one that he had not cleaned. Babb testified, as follows:
-3- “[I]t struck me as strange that they were kind of fuzzy. Again, I don’t know how
long. I mean, I’m not sure of the time frame. I know the job came to us with a
bike that ran poorly, and I was given permission to do a carb clean. And, like [I]
said, I don’t know when it was done last, and I don’t know the time frame to
when I did it.”
¶ 16 Babb identified an invoice for the work he performed on Hart’s motorcycle dated
November 15, 2023, charging $1,006.55 in total for the parts and labor. The cost of the labor was
$800 for servicing the carburetors and performing the required “carb sync” afterwards. The
invoice was admitted into evidence.
¶ 17 Babb testified that the repair work was necessary because the bike ran poorly
when he started it. He removed four carburetors, and all four had the same stains and residue
problems. Babb described the process involved in cleaning the carburetors and stated the process
takes at least five hours. He also stated that the parts appeared to be “factory original” or “stock.”
¶ 18 On cross-examination, Drucker asked, “[T]hroughout the whole course of your
interaction with the motorcycle from start to when you were done with your job, did you see any
previous defects of workmanship?” Babb answered, “No. As far as physicality, no.” Regarding
the green substance and varnishing, Babb agreed that it was possible that from April 2023, when
Hart picked up his motorcycle, and November 2023, when Babb worked on it, there was enough
time “for the carbs and the fuel to go bad and varnish up and clog passages.” Babb elaborated,
“[E]specially if the fuel was left—the fuel being the same from when the original carb clean was
done.” He continued, “Depends on the status of the fuel. Like I said, I’ve seen carbs that I’ve
cleaned go bad in a matter of weeks. Not necessarily of this nature and style, but, yeah,
depending on the state of the fuel.”
-4- ¶ 19 In Babb’s opinion, if a motorcycle was to be stored for a prolonged period of
time, he recommended that the motorcycle be started and run for around 10 to 15 minutes every
two weeks or so. If that was not possible, the tank should be filled and the carburetors drained.
When asked, “Did it look like the carburetors had been drained?” Babb answered, “There is no
way for me to definitely tell you that with the exception that the carburetors were fuzzy and
dirty. So that gave me the impression that they were not stored properly.”
¶ 20 b. Craig Hart
¶ 21 Hart testified that he owned two motorcycles, including the 1994 Yamaha V-
MAX at issue. He took that motorcycle to MD Racing for repairs and signed a “service/repair
contract” with them, a copy of which was admitted into evidence. Hart was having difficulty
with the throttle, which would cause the engine to die when he increased revolutions per minute
(RPMs) from idle.
¶ 22 Hart believed the problem arose from a carburetor issue and took it to MD Racing
for repairs on March 15, 2022, the same day he signed the contract. Hart explained that when he
dropped off the motorcycle, he asked MD Racing to clean the carburetors and MD Racing gave
him a quote of around $1,500. MD Racing later recommended replacing several parts relating to
the brakes, but Hart declined, telling them that he could address those issues himself.
¶ 23 Hart testified that he picked up the motorcycle over a year later, on or about April
6, 2023. He explained that between March 2022 and April 2023, he communicated with MD
Racing a few times, both by calling the shop and stopping by. For a long stretch of time—
approximately between June 2022 and December 2022 or January 2023—Hart had no
communications from MD Racing.
-5- ¶ 24 Hart explained that he paid a total of $4,500 for the repairs, including a $1,000
downpayment in May 2022. When he picked up the motorcycle, he used a trailer to take it home
because it “was not really ready to be ridden.” The motorcycle was still partially disassembled,
and Hart needed to replace some parts. MD Racing had drained the fuel from the motorcycle and
charged $4 for filling the tank.
¶ 25 Hart testified that he did not ride the motorcycle after transporting it home,
deciding instead to have some aesthetic work done, including custom paint. He first rode the
motorcycle in “late September, October of 2023,” which is when he noticed a problem. Hart
explained the problem, as follows:
“I could not accelerate. From a dead stop, I’d had to pull the throttle
halfway back to get the RPMs to do anything, to get it to move. Once I got the
RPMs up high enough and I was actually able to move the bike and proceed
through the gears, it wasn’t until, maybe, third gear, at about 4,000, 5,000 RPM
that it actually ran partially all right.
The interim between when I picked up the motorcycle from *** MD
Racing until I turned it over to Brenny’s for repair, I’d ridden the motorcycle four
miles. And that’s—proof of that is on the odometer reading from the point that I
dropped it off at MD Racing and the check-in with Brenny’s Motorcycle Clinic.
Four miles.”
Hart explained that he did not contact MD Racing before he took his motorcycle to Brenny’s
because he could not tell if MD Racing did quality work, he believed the charges for the repair
were excessive, and he thought he got an “unprofessional runaround” when trying to return the
lithium battery MD Racing sold him. Later, on cross-examination, Hart acknowledged that he
-6- came into MD Racing and asked for a refund of the battery, which he received in full.
¶ 26 Hart took his motorcycle to Brenny’s after he noticed the problem, and they fixed
the problem. Hart paid $1,006.55, which he maintained he would not have had to pay had MD
Racing performed the initial repairs properly.
¶ 27 Hart then testified about the things on the invoice for which he believed MD
Racing excessively charged. He identified a copy of the invoice he received from MD Racing,
and the trial court admitted it into evidence. Hart went through the invoice page by page in an
attempt to identify (1) the parts and work that were unnecessary and (2) the amount of the
excessive charges for those items and services.
¶ 28 On page one of the invoice, Hart asserted he was overcharged $324. 64 for
“certain tap screws that are on the invoice, a lot of the [original equipment manufacturer (OEM)]
parts that were ordered, particularly the internal parts for the carburetor, the gaskets, throttle
cables I included, screws and washers that were unnecessary.” However, he did not explain why
any of those parts were unnecessary, with the exception of a set of tap screws that he said were
“redundant” because he had removed and saved them decades ago.
¶ 29 On page two of the invoice, Hart stated he was excessively charged for motor oil
and radiator fluid. He explained that MD Racing used a brand of motor oil that cost $12.95 per
quart and that he had never heard of. He claimed that oil was “not something [he] would have
ever purchased.” Regarding the radiator fluid, Hart said the $26.85 he was charged was
unnecessary because he would have added his own radiator fluid and “the only thing that [he]
asked MD Racing to do was replace the radiator fill cap.” Also on page two, Hart identified a
carburetor rebuild kit, for which MD Racing had charged $79. Hart testified that he did not know
what the kit was or what it contained. He had “never seen one priced over $35 on eBay,” and the
-7- kits on eBay “contain a lot of the similar brass parts that are listed on page 1 [of the invoice].”
Hart contended that the repair kit was “[u]nnecessary,” “unwarranted, unwanted, and excessive
price.”
¶ 30 Regarding labor costs, Hart stated he was charged $3,518.42 for 37.43 hours of
work. He believed that amount was excessive for three reasons. First, he talked to Yamaha
dealers about carburetor rebuilds and cleanings, and none of the estimates he received were
greater than $1,500. Second, Brenny’s charged him only for about eight hours of labor for the
same work. Finally, Hart believed “[a] lot of things in the description here are not noted in the
service contract ***. And there was never a modification [of the contract] to do any of this
work.”
¶ 31 When asked if he believed MD Racing violated or breached its duty under the
contract, Hart testified that he believed MD Racing breached the contract by performing work
that was not listed and authorized by the contract. Specifically, he testified, “More things were
done to the motorcycle, extra work was performed with more hours charged that I didn’t want,
didn’t request.” Counsel attempted to clarify by asking, “[A]nd that is the things you just talked
about before, correct?” Hart answered, “Yeah.”
¶ 32 In addition, Hart testified that he believed MD Racing violated the Automotive
Repair Act by failing to note in writing any verbal agreements to add to or alter the terms of the
contract, as well as the date and time of the verbal agreement. Hart’s counsel quoted the
following portion of the Automotive Repair Act (815 ILCS 306/25 (West 2022)):
“If it is determined that the estimated price is insufficient because of
unforeseen circumstances, the consumer’s consent must be obtained before the
work estimated is done or parts estimated are supplied. If the consumer’s consent
-8- is oral, the motor vehicle repair facility shall make a notation on the work order or
estimate and on the invoice of the date, time, name of person authorizing the
additional repairs, and telephone number called, if any, together with a
specification of the additional parts and labor and the total additional cost.”
Counsel asked Hart if section 25 was the section to which he was referring, and Hart answered
affirmatively.
¶ 33 When asked why he believed MD Racing’s work was improper and required Hart
to get the motorcycle repaired by another mechanic, Hart stated the following:
“I didn’t expect the issues with the running or the performance of the
motorcycle to have occurred only after four miles of use. The defendant—or
defendant states in his dismissal that he couldn’t account for improper use or
neglect of the motorcycle. My motorcycle, the day I picked it up from MD
Racing, was placed in my garage. I took off the front forks of the motorcycle. I
started the engine periodically at least once every week and a half to let the engine
run. I couldn’t ride it until it was fully reassembled, and that’s when I knew that
there was another issue with the carbs or something else.”
¶ 34 Hart reiterated that MD Racing replaced the fuel in his tank because it charged
him $4 for fuel. He further testified that between when he picked up his motorcycle in April
2023 and when he rode it in September or October 2023, he “ran the motor quite often.” Hart
explained that if the motorcycle was going to sit “for any period of time,” he would “unplug the
fuel pump and let the carburetors burn out,” by which he meant he burned all the remaining fuel
and dried out the floats to make sure fuel would not sit in the carburetors.
¶ 35 On cross-examination, Hart acknowledged that he signed the contract under the
-9- section providing that no written estimate was required and MD Racing would charge $94 per
hour. Hart explained that he did not understand the format of the contract and thought his
signature was for only one portion of the section and not all of the provisions listed there. Hart
also agreed he signed a copy of the invoice, which was then admitted without objection. Hart
signed on page four, which contained a long list of recommended services that MD Racing told
him needed to be performed but were not because Hart did not agree to the additional services.
¶ 36 Hart testified that he dropped the motorcycle off on March 15, 2022, and on May
18, 2022, he returned to MD Racing to provide a $1,000 cash deposit for the repairs. A copy of
the receipt for the deposit was entered into evidence. On further cross-examination, MD Racing
asserted to Hart that they would have had a conversation at the time the deposit was paid about
what additional repairs or services were going to be performed on the motorcycle, but Hart
disagreed with that assertion. Hart stated that the day he dropped off his motorcycle, he asked
MD Racing how much it would cost to “get [his motorcycle] cleaned up and get it running
again,” to which he was told “ ‘about $1500.’ ” Hart agreed that he did not make any payments
until May 18, 2022, but vehemently denied that they discussed repairs or services at the time he
made the deposit. Hart explained as follows:
“You called me on the phone and told me you needed a thousand dollar deposit.
And I said, ‘What’s this for?’
And I—you didn’t state. I came to your location and I paid you a thousand
dollars, and I remember asking. You printed out this invoice receipt—or this
receipt for the down payment. You didn’t state on that down payment what it was
for. You didn’t cite, as you’re supposed to cite, the—the agreement, date and time
on that piece of paper which would have sufficed, but you didn’t, and there was
- 10 - no agreement as to what you were going to do to the bike because you had not—
as far as I know, you hadn’t even evaluated it.”
¶ 37 MD Racing asked Hart if he was in the habit of giving random people $1,000
without telling them what to do with the money. Hart answered that MD Racing had his
motorcycle, it asked him for a $1,000 down payment, and he paid it. Hart agreed no one forced
him to sign the contract.
¶ 38 2. MD Racing’s Case
¶ 39 a. Cindy Martin
¶ 40 Cindy Martin testified that she had been an automotive technician for the last 48
years. Martin stated, “I have worked on small engines, chain saws, snowmobiles, motorcycles,
all of these other things. I have extensive experience of a master technician—a master technician,
[ASE] certified for the last 37 years.” She was familiar with power sports and motorcycles and
had personal experience with “basket case-type restorations.”
¶ 41 Martin testified that she had known Hart for more than 10 years, having met him
through her husband and her husband’s work. She saw Hart’s motorcycle when he dropped it off
at MD Racing and described the condition of the motorcycle as follows: “It was in a
disassembled state, status, where it was not running, and it needed extensive work.” Martin said
the motorcycle “[a]bsolutely” qualified as a “basket case.” Martin reviewed the invoice from MD
Racing for the repairs and agreed that “it was a fair and reasonable assessment” of the work
necessary to get the motorcycle running. Martin was asked to give her opinion on whether
anything was overcharged or unnecessary, and she stated the OEM parts were needed for long
term performance and the racing oil used was billed at a fair price. She believed the 37 hours of
labor was likely shorter than the amount of time actually spent on the repairs. Martin also opined
- 11 - that the various service checks and tests performed were standard, all related to making sure the
motor was working properly, and were necessary to verify that the carburetor repairs were valid.
¶ 42 Martin testified that she spoke with Hart about the motorcycle on a couple of
occasions. Hart had asked Martin to work on it, but Martin referred him to MD Racing because
Drucker was more qualified to do the work it needed. Martin said she spoke with Hart once after
the repairs and questioned why Hart took it to Brenny’s instead of back to MD Racing to give it
the opportunity to “make it right.” Drucker asked, “Did he tell you how he stored the
motorcycle?” and Martin answered as follows:
“He told me that he had just parked it and took it apart for other painting
reasons, and I did not hear anything about him starting it and running it at any
point in that time. And I do know that fuel will degrade over certain amount of
time. It can go, like as the other technician said, could be just a couple weeks, and
even if you had put fresh fuel in it, anything residual in the lines will also cause
problems. I’ve seen that from the pictures that were presented. That is a degraded
fuel. That’s bacteria in the fuel system that is hard to get out of a tank, and it can
come back without getting a decent stabilizer in there, and who knows what he
put in it.”
¶ 43 On cross-examination, Martin testified that she did not actually work on the
motorcycle. When asked why MD Racing spent 30 more hours working on the motorcycle than
Brenny’s, Marin answered, “Because [MD Racing] had already completed the work. Bolts were
freed up, things were replaced, time wasn’t spen[t] on ordering parts or doing any research.”
Martin stated that “[i]t can be” typical in the industry for a motorcycle to spend 13 months in a
shop for these sorts of repairs.
- 12 - ¶ 44 On redirect examination, the following exchange occurred:
“Q. So, basically, you’re saying that since I did all the heavy lifting with
the carbs, getting it ready to go, it was much easier for the next guy to work on,
which it seemed to indicate that he’s found no defects of workmanship according
to his statement, so it was a lot easier for him to get his job done because all the
heavy lifting was done by MD Racing. Is that a fair and accurate statement?
A. Yes.”
¶ 45 b. Matt Drucker
¶ 46 Drucker testified that his repair shop, MD Racing, performed “oil changes and tire
changes,” but it also performed more time consuming projects, such as “engine builds, tuning,
[and] full restorations.” Because the nature of this work required MD Racing to “cover [its]
liability,” it used a contract for service that “clearly states what’s warrantied, what’s not, and
what we’re going to cover and do.” Drucker stated that MD Racing never did work that was not
authorized by the customer.
¶ 47 Drucker reiterated that Hart signed the contract, including on the line that said he
did not require a written estimate, and he initialed the second page of the contract. Drucker stated
he was not given “the opportunity to do a good will on it,” meaning that had Hart brought the
motorcycle back and said something was wrong, MD Racing would have likely done extra work
at no charge to fix the issue. However, he never heard from Hart, and “the whole thing was a
little bit of a shock when [he] got the summons.”
¶ 48 Drucker testified that Hart came into the shop and talked with him on a few
occasions. Drucker then said Hart made two different payments, one on April 3 and the other on
April 6 when he paid off the balance owed, “and at no time did he have a complaint or problem
- 13 - with the bill or what he paid.” Drucker further stated that he personally drove the motorcycle on
a test drive and it drove fine. Even though Hart did not ride the motorcycle and took it home on a
trailer, Drucker said the motorcycle was rideable and “ran great,” although it still needed
additional maintenance.
¶ 49 Drucker testified that he was unclear what exactly Hart was disputing regarding
the parts that were billed and whether Hart was disputing that they were purchased or if he was
disputing how much MD Racing charged. Drucker offered “a copy of what full retail is on the
parts versus what I charge, because my total of the parts came up to $540 where a full retail for
the parts was $726.” Drucker also offered a copy of what he charged and “a highlighted
annotation of what [he] charged for the original equipment parts and what full retail is.” The trial
court admitted those exhibits without objection. Drucker testified that the retail price could also
be confirmed by looking at the Brenny’s invoice, which charged the same retail price on a couple
of the parts. Based on this comparison, Drucker asserted that Hart received “a heavily discounted
¶ 50 On cross-examination, the following exchange occurred:
“Q. All right. And then the contract does provide that any alterations were
to be made in writing, correct?
A. It—while it does say that there, Illinois law does allow for oral
additions even if the contract precludes oral modifications.
Q. And do you—did you take down the leave [sic] the required
information about date, time, phone number, call for authorization, these oral
modifications?
A. Sadly, I don’t have that documentation here.
- 14 - Q. In your opinion, do you owe any money to the plaintiff?
A. That’s not really a fair question. I don’t think so. It’s just I don’t even
know what we’re doing here. I think that’s a better answer.”
¶ 51 3. The Trial Court’s Ruling
¶ 52 After MD Racing rested, the trial court ordered the parties to submit written
closing arguments, which they did.
¶ 53 Later in February 2025, the trial court issued a written ruling by docket entry,
stating as follows:
“The Court after holding trial, hearing all witnesses, reviewing exhibits
and relevant case law and or statutory provisions, and after reviewing written
arguments finds as follows; The Court does find all witnesses to be credible in
this case. However, the Court from all the evidence provided cannot determine by
a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was at fault for damages
incurred in this case. The Court notes the LONG period of time between the
original service, and the repairs. The Court also notes plaintiff didn’t ask
defendant about the work done if he felt it wasn’t done up to standards. Most
people would generally take it back and inform the person the work wasn’t done
or at least have some type of conversation with the other party about the
workmanship. The Court isn’t saying the defendant is innocent, the Court is
saying the plaintiff did not meet his burden of proof in this case, so the Court
finds in favor of the defendant.”
¶ 54 This appeal followed.
¶ 55 II. ANALYSIS
- 15 - ¶ 56 Hart appeals, arguing the trial court erred by (1) not considering various
provisions of the Automotive Repair Act (815 ILCS 306/1 et seq. (West 2022)) and (2) finding
he did not meet his burden of proof where he showed MD Racing performed repairs that were
not listed in the contract and overcharged for those repairs. We disagree and affirm.
¶ 57 A. The Automotive Repair Act
¶ 58 As an initial matter, we note that Hart’s claims regarding the Automotive Repair
Act (Act) are misplaced because that Act does not apply in this case. Specifically, the
Automotive Repair Act does not provide a private right of action to consumers for violations.
See Jandeska v. Prairie International Trucks, Inc., 383 Ill. App. 3d 396, 400 (2008) (noting that
“providing a private right of action is not necessary to provide an adequate remedy for violation
of the statute as section 85 of the Automotive Repair Act provides penalties for violations of the
Act”). Instead, section 85 of that Act authorizes the “Attorney General and the several State’s
Attorneys” to enforce the Act under the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
(815 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2022)) “[i]n the case of *** a knowing, persistent practice of
pattern of conduct” that violates the Act. 815 ILCS 306/85 (West 2022). We also note that
section 75 of the Automotive Repair Act provides that repair facilities that fail to comply with
the Act are “barred from asserting a possessory or chattel lien for the amount of the unauthorized
parts or labor upon the motor vehicle or component.” Id. § 75. Given this context showing the
Automotive Repair Act contains limited and specific statutory remedies, we conclude that Hart
cannot rely on the provisions of that Act to support his claims.
¶ 59 Even if we were to consider Hart’s claims under the Act, for the reasons
explained hereafter, we conclude that the trial court’s finding that Hart failed to meet his burden
of proof was correct and affirm the court’s judgment.
- 16 - ¶ 60 B. The Breach of Contract Claim
¶ 61 1. The Applicable Law
¶ 62 “In order prevail on a claim for breach of contract, a plaintiff must prove (1) the
existence of a contract, (2) the performance of the conditions precedent, (3) breach by defendant,
and (4) damages as result of the breach.” Nelson v. Quarles & Brady, LLP, 2018 IL App (1st)
171653, ¶ 143. “Plaintiffs must prove a breach of contract cause of action by a preponderance of
the evidence.” Lidecker v. Kendall College, 194 Ill. App. 3d 309, 317 (1990). A plaintiff must
meet its burden of proof with respect to each element of its claim. Redmond v. Socha, 216 Ill. 2d
622, 644 (2005). “Whether a breach of contract occurred *** is a question of fact, and the court’s
finding will not be disturbed on appeal unless it was against the manifest weight of the
evidence.” Timan v. Ourada, 2012 IL App (2d) 100834, ¶ 24.
¶ 63 “A judgment is against the manifest weight of the evidence only when the
findings appear to be unreasonable, arbitrary, or not based on evidence, or when an opposite
conclusion is apparent.” Vaughn v. City of Carbondale, 2016 IL 119181, ¶ 23. “The manifest
weight of the evidence standard affords great deference to the trial court because the trial court is
in a superior position to determine and weigh the credibility of the witnesses, observe witnesses’
demeanor, and resolve conflicts in their testimony.” Wade v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co., 2017
IL App (1st) 161765, ¶ 59. The appellate court therefore does not substitute its judgment for that
of the trial court and will not overturn a trial court’s findings merely because it does not agree
with the lower court or because it might have reached a different conclusion had it been the trier
of fact. Diocese of Quincy v. Episcopal Church, 2014 IL App (4th) 130901, ¶ 38. Accordingly,
the trial court’s judgment will be affirmed provided the record contains any evidence supporting
it. In re Estate of Wilson, 238 Ill. 2d 519, 570 (2010).
- 17 - ¶ 64 “Any time a trial court serves as a fact finder, perhaps the single most important
thing the court can do is say whom it believes and whom it does not. When the trial court favors
us with such a finding, we are at the height of our deference to that court.” People v. Carter,
2021 IL App (4th) 180581, ¶ 68.
¶ 65 2. This Case
¶ 66 Here, the trial court explicitly stated that it found all witnesses to be credible and,
after considering all the evidence presented, concluded that Hart had failed to prove his case by a
preponderance of the evidence. The court emphasized that it was not concluding that MD Racing
was “innocent” and instead was basing its finding on Hart’s failure to meet his burden of proof
“that [MD Racing] was at fault for damages.” In other words, after hearing all the evidence, the
court was not convinced that it was more likely than not that MD Racing’s actions caused Hart to
either (1) overpay for the repairs or (2) pay Brenny’s to clean the carburetors.
¶ 67 In particular, the trial court highlighted some of the questions that remained after
considering all the evidence at trial, such as (1) the long time period between MD Racing’s
service and Brenny’s repairs and (2) Hart’s failure to follow up with MD Racing about the
quality of repairs. These two questions suggest Hart may have been at fault for the further repairs
by not properly storing or maintaining the motorcycle and may have considered MD Racing’s
workmanship to be acceptable and changed his mind only after paying Brenny’s for repairs.
¶ 68 The evidence in the record supports the trial court’s findings. Both Babb and
Martin testified that, based on their extensive experience, carburetors could go bad within a few
weeks, depending on the fuel. Babb stated that he did not see any indicia of poor workmanship
prior to repairing the motorcycle. MD Racing presented an estimate sheet showing the online
prices for the parts, which ended up costing more than the amount Hart was charged and paid.
- 18 - Indeed, some of the parts were priced slightly cheaper than what Brenny’s charged. And Martin
opined that MD Racing’s charges for the cost of the parts were fair or even a little low. Martin
also opined that the labor costs were reasonable.
¶ 69 Finally, Hart paid the invoice in full and never complained about the amounts
charged or the services performed until after he got repairs at Brenny’s, and this occurred despite
his returning the new battery and receiving a full refund. Common experience suggests that a
customer would notice when charged for unauthorized work or overpriced or unnecessary parts
and seek a refund from the seller, as Hart did with the battery. Hart’s failure to do so here
suggests that Hart had, in fact, agreed to all of the services MD Racing performed, whether under
the original contract or through a subsequent oral modification during one of the several
meetings and phone calls the parties agreed occurred.
¶ 70 By highlighting this evidence, we are not suggesting that Hart failed to present
any evidence in his favor. To the contrary, the trial court could have believed Hart’s need to have
identical services performed on the exact same parts at a drastically lower cost suggested that
MD Racing may not have provided workmanlike service or overcharged in some respect.
However, that evidence does not compel a finding in Hart’s favor, particularly considering that
Hart stored the motorcycle for six months after paying MD Racing for the repairs, and during
that time, the lack of use could have led to the carburetors needing further cleaning or repairs.
Our point is that given all the conflicting evidence and the trial court’s finding that all witnesses
were credible, the court’s conclusion that Hart failed to meet his burden of proving MD Racing
was at fault by a preponderance of the evidence is well supported by the record. Accordingly, we
affirm the trial court’s judgment against Hart.
- 19 - ¶ 71 In closing, we express our gratitude to the trial court, whose careful consideration
of the evidence and thoughtful written ruling identifying whom it found credible greatly assisted
our review.
¶ 72 III. CONCLUSION
¶ 73 For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
¶ 74 Affirmed.
- 20 -