Home Depot Equipment Rental Agreement

Posted on Sep 22 2021 - 11:16am by Ed

John Rickher filed a class action against Home Depot and argued that The Home Depot`s sale of a damage waiver in connection with the rental of tools was contrary to the Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("CFA"), see 815 ill. Comp. Stat. 505/2. Rickher asserts that renunciation is a worthless product because it does not offer value or protection to the customer that goes beyond what is already provided for in the basic "lease agreement."   According to Rickher, the sale of the worthless waiver of damages is both misleading and unfair according to the CFA. The District Court rejected Rickher`s argument and rejected his application for class certification.   Since we agree with the District Court that the damages are worth it, we uphold the verdict. O`Neill returned the saw on June 20, 2004. (See id. at 76:13-15). A Home Depot employee inspected the tool to make sure it had not been damaged and cleaned.

(See id. at 80:24-25, 81:1-4). O`Neill had not damaged the saw and was not charged for damage. (See Id. at 76:16-25, 77:5-7). Once the tool was inspected, O`Neill received a rental invoice that contained the rental fee and revealed once again that he had been charged $3.90 for the declaration of cancellation of the damage. (See Id. at 78:12-21; 79:2-4). Then O`Neill signed an invoice that says, "I recognize that. the total costs mentioned above are correct. (Id. c.

79:5-12; Post March 2005 Rental Agr., General Terms and Conditions, Exh. " 8" ). The claimant did not tell anyone about the waiver of personal injury at The Home Depot, complained or requested that the cancellation fee be removed. (See O`Neill Dep., March 23, 2006, 53:4-17; 80:3-12). Lump sum damages for unpaid rent. . . .