however, the defendant has a duty to speak (such as when he stands in some confidential or fiduciary relationship to the plaintiff), then a failure to speak may be actionable. See, e.g., Zimmerman, 156 Ill.App.3d at 161, 109 Ill.Dec. at 545, 510 N.E.2d at 413; W. Keeton, supra, at § 106. The Deceptive Practices Act, therefore, does not create liability for negligent misrepresentation when the defendant is not in the business of supplying information for the guidance of others in their business transactions with third persons; rather, it may be relevant in determining whether a defendant who is in the business of supplying information breached his duty by failing to inform the plaintiff of material facts. Cf. Zimmerman, 156 Ill App.3d at 161-62, 109 Ill.Dec. at 545, 510 N.E.2d at 413 (<HOLDING>). Second, the plaintiffs assert that this court
holding that the real estate brokers law which provided for the investigation of the acts of real estate brokers and the suspension or revocation of their licenses for specified acts is penal and must be strictly construed holding brokers were not entitled to commission where agreement provided commission was payable at closing of real estate transaction because brokers did not produce clients that closed recognizing implied private action for violation of the real estate brokers and salesmen license act holding that a real estate brokers allegations of an oral contract with prospective purchasers stated a cause of action holding that real estate brokers had duty under real estate broker and salesman license act illrevstat ch 111 paras 57015743 1981 repealed by pa 83191  38 eff jan 1 1984 to disclose relevant information and therefore plaintiff stated cause of action for common law fraud brokers also liable for economic losses under negligent misrepresentation theory because they were in the business of supplying information