Dist.Ct. did not err in granting defendant-general contractor's motion for summary judgment in plaintiff-subcontractor's action alleging breach of contract, promissory estoppel, negligent misrepresentation and violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act, arising out of series of proposals for construction project. While president of defendant wrote letter to plaintiff indicating intention to enter into contract with plaintiff, there was no meeting of minds to establish existence of enforceable contract, where: (1) both parties contemplated submission of formal contract by defendant; and (2) contract signed by plaintiff contained hand-written edits regarding material changes to contract submitted by defendant that concerned payment terms and scope of plaintiff's work that were never signed by defendant. Also, plaintiff could not proceed on promissory estoppel claim, where defendant's letter of intent to enter into formal contract, as well as defendant's vague expressions of looking forward to working together operated as nothing more than unenforceable agreement to agree to future contract. Too, plaintiff could not proceed on either Illinois or Wisconsin statutes, where: (1) record did not support plaintiff's claim that defendant made misleading claim that plaintiff had subcontract to do framing work; and (2) plaintiff could only show that both parties entered into prolonged negotiations that never resulted in firm agreement.
