Hall v. Sprint Spectrum, L.P.
Appellate Court of Illinois
376 Ill. App. 3d 822, 876 N.E.2d 1036, 315 Ill. Dec. 446 (2007)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Sprint Spectrum, L.P. and SprintCom, Inc., doing business as Sprint PCS Group (Sprint) (defendants), provided wireless communication services. Sprint customers signed a contract that required the customer to pay an early termination fee if the service was canceled before a specified time. Jessica Hall (plaintiff) entered into a wireless contract with Sprint for two separate cellular phone lines. Hall fell behind on payments and Sprint stopped Hall’s service. Hall tried to cancel her one-year contract, but Sprint refused to do so unless she paid the balance due plus an early-termination fee. Sprint’s contract contained a choice-of-law provision selecting Kansas law, the state of Sprint’s incorporation. Hall filed a class action suit in Illinois state court against Sprint. Hall claimed that Sprint’s early-termination fees were unlawful penalties. Hall alleged various causes of action under the laws of Kansas, Illinois, and other states where Sprint conducted business. Hall requested class certification and argued that Kansas common law applied nationally to the breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and relief from unlawful penalties counts. The trial court certified a 48-state class and contemplated the application of Kansas law pursuant to the choice-of-law provision in the Sprint contract. Sprint appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stewart, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.