Global Technology & Trading, Inc. v. Tech Mahindra Limited

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in plaintiff’s action seeking recovery of broker’s fee that plaintiff claimed it earned by providing services arising out of defendant’s purchase of business, where plaintiff had failed to comply with dictates of Illinois Business Broker’s Act, which requires that all broker agreements be in writing. While plaintiff contended that defendant had essentially waived any argument under said Act by failing to include it as affirmative defense in its answer, Dist. Ct. had authority to permit any untimely affirmative defense, where plaintiff did not suffer any prejudice in terms of ability to contest affirmative defense on its merits arising out of any delay in asserting said defense. Moreover, while Rule 8(c) requires that affirmative defense “must” be raised in answer to complaint, Rule 8(c) does not provide any consequence for delay in asserting affirmative defense.