Margolin v. Franklin, 132 Ill.App.2d 527 (1971) p632.

Promissory condition

• D signed a promissory note for promising to pay monthly installments for a car
• There was a disagreement between parties as to what the actual monthly date of payment was.
• Evidentially D had a phone conversation with P where it was okayed for the payments to be made a little be later.
• D missed several payments, P thought they had skipped town and then had the car repossessed.
• The car was then sold at an auction.

Trial court found the car was unlawfully repossessed and a breach of contract.

Was it reasonable for the P to repossess D’s car?

When changing a contract there must be reasonable, definite, and specific notice of changed intention.

No it was not reasonable to repossess D’s car. This was a breach of promise.

Cannot establish a pattern of accepting late payments and then refuse to accept any late payments. If the vender wants to change back to the original payment plan the vender must give reasonable, definite and specific notice of its changed intention. The vender in this case did not do this. Therefore P could not suddenly insist on a strict lateral compliance of the payment provisions of the contract and declare a forfeiture. P also owes D damages for taking their car.