Illinois
Illinois enforces a kept deposit that was a reasonable forecast, when the client agreed, of a loss that would be uncertain and hard to prove. Its courts look for 3 things: an intent to settle damages in advance, an amount reasonable when agreed and related to the likely loss, and actual damages that would be hard to prove. The deposit has to be a specific amount for a specific breach, such as a no-show, never merely a threat to force attendance. A policy that keeps the deposit and reserves the right to bill the client for more is the shape Illinois courts strike, and the word “forfeit” points toward a penalty.
Does a non-refundable deposit hold up in Illinois?
The law’s word for a set sum agreed in advance is liquidated damages.
In Bauer v. Sawyer, the Illinois Supreme Court adopted the Restatement, a legal treatise: an amount set in advance is enforced only as a reasonable forecast of just compensation for a harm that is impossible or very hard to estimate accurately, and it struck a clause whose terms aimed to secure performance, noting that the word “forfeit” is not controlling but tends to exclude the idea of liquidated damages. In Jameson Realty Group v. Kostiner, a contract for a broker’s services, the Appellate Court set out 3 elements and required a specific amount for a specific breach, never merely a threat to secure performance or a means to punish, and it enforced that clause. In Catholic Charities v. Thorpe, a clause letting a seller keep earnest money, a buyer’s deposit toward a purchase, or pursue actual damages at its option was no settlement at all and could not be enforced.
“(1) the parties intended to agree in advance to the settlement of damages that might arise from the breach; (2) the amount of liquidated damages was reasonable at the time of contracting, bearing some relation to the damages which might be sustained; and (3) actual damages would be uncertain in amount and difficult to prove.” Bauer v. Sawyer, 8 Ill. 2d 351 (1956) · Jameson Realty Group v. Kostiner, 351 Ill. App. 3d 416 (2004) · Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Chicago v. Thorpe, 318 Ill. App. 3d 304 (2000)
Showing your refund policy
No refund-policy disclosure statute was found. The Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 ILCS 505, was read in full and searched for “refund,” “return policy” and “cancellation policy”; its only refund-policy disclosure is for prepaid calling cards. The Attorney General’s online-shopping guidance tells consumers to know the refund policy and cites no posting statute.
Body-art rules and money
Nothing about deposits, refunds, cancellations or client prices in Illinois’s Body Art Code, 77 Ill. Adm. Code Part 797, read in full. Its only money is registration fees and fines for violations.
This page summarizes public law in plain language, with the source each point comes from, read at the source on 2026-09-23. It is not legal advice.