Illinois courts seem increasingly willing to look beyond the terms of the policy and allegations of the complaint when deciding whether a liability insurer has a duty to defend its insured.
The four corners rule bars admission of parol evidence to interpret contracts unless they're ambiguous. But in rare cases, the provisional admission approach might allow such evidence.
Damage awards can take years, and Illinois' prejudgment interest statute doesn't always apply. Why not include a prejudgment interest provision in contracts for your business clients?
On February 7, 2014, the First District Appellate Court of Illinois held that a contract provision stating the agreement could only be terminated upon the express written consent of both parties created a perpetual contract, and was therefore void as contrary to public policy.
On March 8, 2013, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, held there must be evidence that a principal indicated an agent was authorized to bind the principal to a contract prior to its signing, or that the principal had knowledge of the contract, for the principal to be liable under claims of apparent authority or ratification.
You could argue that a contract provision is ambiguous because it has more than one meaning. Or you could argue that it doesn't have any clear meaning. The article looks at both approaches.
Rumors of the death of the legitimate-business-interest test as a measure for determining the legitimacy of restrictive covenants were greatly exaggerated, the supreme court says.
On July 19, 2010, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, upheld a section 2-615 motion to dismiss from the Circuit Court of Cook County, finding that the 2008 global credit crisis was not adequate grounds to rescind a contract under the doctrine of impossibility of performance.
A third-party client is now legally responsible to pay wages and payroll taxes to licensed day and temporary labor service agencies for the services performed according to the terms in the respective invoices and agreements. (820 ILCS 175/30).
On June 30, 2010, the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, reversed a decision of the Circuit Court of Cook County, finding that a contractor's procedural violations of the Home Repair and Remodeling Act ("the Act") (815 ILCS 513/1 et seq) did not preclude the contractor from asserting a mechanic's lien or breach of contract claim.
On September 30, 2009, the Illinois Appellate Court, Second District, affirmed in part and reversed in part the Circuit Court of Du Page County's decision to grant the defendant's motion to dismiss a complaint stemming from an unpaid construction bill, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
The first district found for Micheal Jordan against his former mistress in a case that, while interesting, includes a troubling analysis of the mutual-mistake doctrine you should know about.
On August 20, 2008, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County finding that the defendant had committed legal malpractice.
Many contracts are formed by the exchange of price quotes, purchase orders, and invoices, which often contain conflicting terms. This article reviews typical "battle of the forms" issues.
On February 21, 2008, the Illinois Appellate Court, First District, affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County denying the plaintiff's request for a preliminary injunction.
On January 30, 2008, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, affirmed the judgment of the Circuit Court of Christian County awarding the plaintiffs $10,000 plus costs for the defendant's failure to provide the plaintiffs with a real estate disclosure statement.
Under the rule, A’s promise to pay B’s debt is enforceable even if A didn’t put it in writing if it’s made before the debt was incurred. The high court says that’s not the law in Illinois.
A look at the Illinois Supreme Court's arbitration-friendly decision in Melena, complete with pointers for drafting or challenging arbitration clauses in its wake.
