first of which non competition clauses are disfavored closely scrutinized and ambiguities are construed against the drafting party of the facts of this case refly jeremy rakers with oil by american p the injunction based upon the language for any cause and the fact that a resignation is not a for cause terminations therefore the not can he does not know why the trial court denied that motion to reconsider this and also ambiguity as for construed against the granting party surprisingly there is little case law in this state which addresses that phrase or cause specific about the phrase for any cause whatsoever said if the contract that made it clear that was it was for any cause whatsoever the ruling would be done that's what we have here is a well it's the same language however i believe that the language is still in the in that case the language for any cause contained in the woman contract is susceptible more than one meaning means as such should be should be construed against the draft already in the employee's tradition most prevail now the language or the word whatsoever in clude it after for any cause i believe the word set still that's the same and it could mean for any cause whatsoever or it can bishop case pointed out that actually it's you have to have some reason terminations can't just get a reservation without cause try reading the case it says in examining the language of the competition typical employment contract is right about terminations going to cause whatsoever that's the language you can be terminated there are all sorts of reasons you can be terminated you can do it voluntarily there can be no reason is when you use the language for any cost even for any cause whatsoever what sense does that make the whole idea of a non competition clause is the employer doesn't want the employee to develop a lot of skills i'm in his employment and then result of go out and use those against an employer the question is not cause if the employee resigns for any between the language you just offered and what's what you know what back it up see whatsoever means that you have to have odds you have to have some cause recognized by a long public opinion as a good reason to see i don't know the language for any cause whatsoever we believe and i think it's it's coming out here that there is an ambiguity in this it's because my interpretation of this is certainly different from yours and i imagine maybe between all three i've been reading this it seems to to me that you have to have some sort of cause some cause whatsoever where to have this man compete to be affected i think that's in the very language of this non competing if however they use the language for any reason or no reason that's a different story that's the common language and on computers these days and i believe that's what the fish court was getting there was that if you're going to use the language for any cause you have to have some cause you have to have some cause whatsoever to even bring it up why why that would that would permit anyone who signs this agreement to just walk away the draft or even though the original ambiguity might be held against them that there is if not substantial likelihood of success on the merits a reasonable i think you can strongly argue that whatsoever means we don't care what the reason is it could be that if you're a female you're pregnant that might violate other laws well they will evade bolli laws there be other reasons but within the context of just looking at the document just looking and contract that's ok you have to bring in our laws to get that gravity and we don't have that you were just looking at  wet employment situation in illinois are you aware where there has to be cause for firing or for severing the relationship with an employee where there isn't a employment contract regarding severance or you know the policy hand you know those sorts of arguments again brought up right we may look at this case as i don't believe in the employment contract in this case having not looked at it specifically for your issue right obviously but i don't think they used them when we contract  if it is an at will contract it's all the more reason why that mountain he is i mean that the typical language we use and i can be these days is for any reason or no reason and then you don't you don't get into this  tire issue right here which is exactly what because when you begin to use that word because that word cots means whether the word whatsoever is after it whatsoever in my mind means you still have to have but it has to be some cause it's whatsoever has to be you still have to have any cause what it doesn't mean in the least the way i interpret it is it doesn't mean you can terminate someone for no cause and have it still why because by the very language was talking about the employer terminating the boy here we're talking about the employee terminating his opponent right and i i think of an employee the way this contract is drafted i think they're meant to be read to see either although if i come to you smile and say i'm going to start a pest control bit because i can do it better than you and i say well you son of a bit policy regarding construing ambiguity has the draft is strong enough to counterbalance the policy of that the theory of law is what is the purpose of the back in the context of the industry in the context of the consequences that are going to flow from it i'm considering it in favor of the american task role or i'm so rightly too that it's an employee is terminated without cause well that their employment agreement may actually still be up but what bishop was doing there was addressing the third argument that was raised in that argument was that a non competition causes a forcible as a matter of walk when the employee is fired without cause well that's not the on that but that was the that was the third and final argument that they were trying to raise an issue for us but it wasn't applicable in bishop because of the ambiguity that existed if you don't have additional time lubov good morning jeremy liable for american pest control i think all three of you have hit on the one word that if i had to leave you a contract or out of got together pieces of literature where you're trying to understand what it means just hold out context and in the back you try to understand what it means how it will here is focusing on this word does but it's outside of context we really need to look at the context of bishop to understand how they even got to the point of the name beauty because they were not looking at ambiguity in the generic as far as causes concern they were looking at a specific per hour within the bishop parties on track and they  that would have out of to after all the reasons for terminations and so basically the bishop court looked at the bishop contract and found one set of circumstances where the contractual language would allow the parties to terminate the relationship without having to do anything but simply do a time piece to cause it to sort of like a no fault divorce persons on the other side within the paragraph seven you have this explicit event language that spelled out for five specific triggering events that were more or less all based reasons again if you use the divorce scenario that would trigger the end of parties relationship and so forth so because we have a sort of cause in there we don't know if the word process talking about the no fault provisions might be eating or talking about the be a real serious threat if he were outed patient so the employer hires him he seemed odd for a week and then he fires and says oh by the way the contract says you can't compete through two years so if we were going with our existing contract here and it would be elected fifty weeks out of fifty two without having to pass so even in that horrible situation i've given you the employer gets away with it and the employee gets fifty weeks of compensation for not having to live think you can do anything you know it's a trade off because well sneaky employee for a year and a day and then then you don't think that could happen and it would still result in a two year twenty five mile radius and even know that's a hypothetical and it seems to me the hypothetical is a really disturbing situation and your answer is no that's what the practices were so there is no question that we can pos whole process for variation they want that involve some sort of a real real real well doing business but in both of those cases we have the exact language we're dealing with here person pest control freakery and in neither case analysis was possession and secondarily the employer has to pay the employee all funds that are doing only so if we're going to take mr johnson's interpretation and skew this physicist the path to have fault based cause then jam that into that paragraph and now because we don't as we have a voluntary resignation for you that means one doesn't have to return the equipment or chemicals or supplies etc and the employer is liberated from having to make a final payment and that's completely nonsensical so we just can't places i would ask this court to enforce the faeries agreement put them right back where they contractually obligated each other and  this this decision here which should ha t doesn't make a difference that their bishop was fired and this boy in our case quit i don't think that makes a difference because work kind of against the will