and as you know this erickson was employed as the nursing home administrator for the defendant's nursing home she acted in that point in time it was may fifteenth of two thousand and six and expiration date of november thirtieth two thousand and eleven it also shows allocated each of her salary improvements earlier throughout the three year term back into the into on the premises or even terminate her contract and i don't think anyone would question that because it's pretty specific in that part of the resolution and also  defendant decided that they did not want to pay mr erickson the pay that they allocated for the year for example twenty ten she could bring an action against them in court and she would prevail because it specifically clear in illinois that there is a presumption that if there is no specific duration mention that the presumption is that the employer's employer will but here the defendant loses that presumption because we have both fixed duration of employment which in illinois means that she can only be discharged for cost and we also have employment at will and not living on the premises it's pretty clear in the four corners of the document you don't need any other interpretation from that but in this case we don't know all we don't know if he was hired and in her job is only isn't a statute that's a force that own in peace a contract law states that if there's any question on it or any conflicts here there is resolve against the drafting of the document and that tractor is account is the defendant and so miss erickson should prevail just based on that just basic contract law and then also if we look at the conduct of the parties the conduct of the parties they treated this like it was a employment contract here she was employed for a two and a half year period in the beginning when she first started her employment in two thousand and six at the end of that thirtieth two thousand eight hundred november twenty first they passed a resolution rehiring her or her three year term so they treated this as a contract and also there's no question that in that prior resolution the first resolution so they treated this like contract she even had discussions as state and has pleaded in her complaint she had discussions with the defendants nursing home county board nursing home committee members and they were telling her we have to renew your contract also in the complaint it stated that they did mention that the county board chairman wanted to know if she would take a one year term and she stated no she would not she would only accept a three year or so and the resolution was passed by any other three year term so if you look at the conduct of the parties and how they treated this they treated this as a contract for specific their ration and  believe just based on that and also i want to bring up some of this was an oversight on my part if the defendant really briefly believed she was employees well they went ahead of science because all the list here is off or cause reasons to discharge somebody and you know they consider her employer well they should have cites the resolution as the terms of the employment agreement between them and when you look at that and it's clear from its face it talks about what would she would be paid for the given years of the service she would get but then it very clearly states that notwithstanding anything i'm above that including these rules of of being an employee this is an employment will and the key there is is the difference between this case and those cited by plaintiffs counsel because plaintiffs counsels he says are ones where the the the negotiations and other written agreements are completely looking ron's saying what the artist talk about and what did they do in various things we don't have that here we have the very resolution of the plaintiffs claims as being one which gives for the power to make that to bring this lawsuit to look at these visions and what i have to determine is how do we give credence to the essential of the four corners of that document which is also required he said i see the provisions which say that for the period  be of six fifteen because by applying the four corners of the document as set forth in the plaintiff's complaint saying this is what i'm relying upon that they can't pick and choose which ones they want to have and which ones they don't because this person is an employee it will you can't sue than for the fact that the person decided one of the parties decided to end that relationship i will state you hear that clearly we have a situation where in this case the plaintiff wants to use the benefit of the resolution when it fits her in terms of you know the dollar some of the length of time but once we've nor the provision the toss about the employment will if this is been the other way around if for instance ms erickson and i'm not suggesting she would be fine to do that would at some point saying you know i can get a better job somewhere else i know that i have this three year position that sucks for the resolution but i know that is an employee well i can give them notice and i'm leaving too we could not a lot of soup for wrongful destroy our or for breach of contract in this particular case because it was an employment will it's good for the goose and it's good for the gander all we're asking this court to do was to recognize that employment will have as its requirements and effects both partners and in this particular case this was well known to ms erickson because i would bring to the court's attention that we have to assume that all will plead facts are correct in paragraph one of the amended complaint she talks of modern negotiations with a committee of the county or they talked about the term in the requirements but then said this was still subject and should they allege and paragraph beyond that she knew that that this was subject to the approval and the actual down the the litigation path as as the case may be not that this was an oral agreement between the parties but it was the terms of the resolution therefore they must accept all of the aspects of the resolution however that may come about including the employment will situation i cited several cases in the brief i won't go over them in detail that essentially say you don't partners can pick and choose which part of the agreement or the terms of the agreement they want to leave and therefore if they want to believe one part makes the others in him and big you it's rather but in this particular case there is no ambiguity and i thought very federal did an excellent job in looking at this entire matter by saying that the way to look at this is you apply both and have them read together and when you read those together they essentially say if you work during this period you will be paid that much money you're entitled to that the next period the next per but then i'm also going to apply the employment will so that if you either party essentially chooses that the that relationship is going to end it's not going to be a three year agreement it's going to end whenever they decide to that i'm going to apply that as well and those who can't be right and so for all of those reasons this is a proper with all due respect your honor we believe a do and promises fifteen the motion and that there isn't going to be anything added by any other facts or by summary judgment otherwise when the plaintiffs starts the case saying i'm i'm going to rely upon the terms of this written document for the fact that that i should be able to win this case and our position is if you just look at the document have otherwise thank you very much ambiguity is resolved it is the draft or the contract and that should be the defendant also they trip that the issue that the i believe mentions is that she was not found she could left at any time but that the apple e was the drafter of the contract and they could have found her they put it put in the resolution that if she was to leave employment that she cannot time that was not mentioned and that was not an issue in that case so we have a similar situation here maybe she could have left at any time but they were drafted that and they could if they drafted the contract and they