that for simplicity sake it's a matter of introduction building at issue here six twenty five the street street champagne his located in a prime commercial area just a block from university of illinois campus and surrounded by a growing vibrant business community unfortunately the building is still vacant and unoccupied for about for over five years now after a fire in march two thousand and eleven and unfortunately it's not serve any one economic value since that time either unfortunately also the judgment of the trial court did not judgment and then say later we'll have a trial on yes those issues yes and in fact as a matter of fact i think that it takes time to play for damages economic damages would in lost profits clearly under the state of illinois law for a long time or not germane to a force one has the script been handled in many different ways in fact there were other remedies available to  motions to dismiss but then also is the case along the truck where became involved in both the first material breach analysis it refused because he did not consider those repairs sufficient having said that there's no obligation for ted to perform to replace everything that's needed for what's referred to in the record as the and even if even if ted did breach the lease in not bringing it all the way that to the condition it was in precisely at the time of the fire that and when there's a breeze reached by the lesser but another option they get sued for overpayment of france on the third they could have made the repairs themselves and there's testimony in the record from and so there's that other option and also they could then sue for breach and claim damages and that's not measured in terms of lost profits that's measured in terms of the difference between the value of the premises i ten times more than the estimated cost of making the repairs that disproportionate amount should have suggested to the truck or that you know that this these damages should have been mitigated there are those fo building has been totally destroyed and it was and that's a that's a quote totally destroyed the city was severely damaged in a fire march twenty fourth two thousand and eleven but in analyzing in reasoning for the tire to have possession the court didn't consider that period of repair it was loaded at least six months and more but also if there's a tie decided not to physically out but occupy the premises that doesn't mean that they were not in session they were certainly in legal possession of this we argue as of at least november eleventh we were always the tenant from the term police but this is where they they they certainly were illegal possession they had the obligation or to operate his clothing business unfortunately the premises burned down but before that if the premises burned down there are going to a lease negotiated between mr maser  giannopoulos if i may just read a couple of provisions of that lease to you that i think are quite appropriate paragraph fourteen of these less or agrees to promptly repair replace or rebuild premises for any portion thereof damaged by fire or any other casually occurring during the term of the lease and any extension clearly out the obligation of mr giannopoulos to make those repairs also part of fourteen during the initial term here of less or shall add enough for sole cost and expense for the mutual benefit of the lessee and less or maintained commercial property form insurance insuring the building  against damage and destruction by fire and other perils in the amount of the full replacement value of the building as such value me exist from time to time paragraph fifteen damages to premises and the event of any damage to or destruction of the premises the proceeds of all insurance available shall immediately be applied to repair such damage or destruction and such repair shall be made within one hundred twenty days or such further time as may be reasonably necessary such damage or destruction show in norway  be the facts that you will see in the records of this case so hard that the fire occurred march twenty three of two thousand and eleven thereafter it was mr giannopoulos as the less hors obligation to make the necessary repairs this that these these repairs were supposedly ongoing by mr g anomalous and come november of two thousand and eleven he offered to return the repaired premises to the time the only problem was that he did not complete the repairs he did not complete the repairs that were obligated to be perform and that he returned it to the the no luvox stage that was preexisting the lease and it was when it was first taken over at the time of the lease initiated of the old mexican restaurant replacement value was anticipated by the us consequently it was not an acceptable condition to the time to accept the premise he said as tender you'll see there testimony at trial in two thousand and thirteen going to what was needed in order to put the first floor just the first floor into a habitable not have a book commercial be able to put this into the proper condition mr maser testified that he thought he could probably get that done for you have a little bit less than that maybe twenty five or thirty thousand dollars mr  defense was i don't have any more money i didn't think it was going to cost this much although he had to be written obligation under the terms of the lease to keep it fully insured for the replacement ballot and he didn't do that so he said he didn't return it to the condition that it was supposed to be and because he couldn't afford it the record will also show that after mr g m outlets had paid for repairs apparently with all of the insurance money one of the contractors gave him a refund of twenty four thousand dollars saying dad it was less expensive to repair than what we bought so i'm going to give you back the twenty four have to go mitigate damages that are there have not been cured because mr john uplifts has chosen not to do the council it seems like opposing counsel strong this argument is the fact that this was a forcible entry in detainer and the notion that really this counter claim took over the case and it really shouldn't just been about the right to possession and of aspect in a in a strict f e d s sense if somebody said ok you've got a fire that destroyed this premises and used and so the the argument would be made that there would be no rent that was owed when it's not in a temple condition  the owner the owner had possession had access to the property for purposes of repairs from the time of the fire for the legal possession of the proceeding require the title to pave around for a building that could not be occupied and for which there is a contract which states that the less or his obligated to make repairs if if they are if they are not considered together the result could be that mr g a novelist is not required to make any of the repairs that he committed to make under the terms of the contract not make the repairs and yet demand that there be rent paid when there is no consideration for that room i think it was in the under the jack spring case and maybe under the some of the other case my brief that what you're asking but tired to do is to pay out all of this rent for a building that is not even occupying well by the time and if you're saying well why doesn't the time to make the repairs although it's still ongoing this time the owner of the property would still get back that premises and it has been improved at and paid for through the rent that was recently that was received by  retain occupancy of the premises and not pay rent when you've got a leaky roof and i think that what judge leonard is saying in this case this isn't just some leaky roof where you can still occupy the premises have the use of the premises and then try to avoid pain rent that would be an equitable of would not be consistent with our ideas of the commerce and the landlord tenant relationship so what what judge leonard was the same was that when you've got a situation where you've got a lease that obligates the less or to have the insurance that would provide the money to make the repairs and the less or undertakes the obligation to make those repairs fails to make the repairs which was a breach of the lease and then still expect the tenant under the same instrument it's the same lease doc you expect him to make those repairs that were under the terms of the lease but the less source obligation to do it first of all just judge leonard determined that because that was not tenant of all no rent was too it was in twenty thirty go back to twenty eleven it is correct that the tire did not pay rent for the first seven months up through november so if there is an independent obligation to pay the rent even though the premises was not available then that would have been the leases extended and they're still there has not been payment and the rent is not up to date am i correct that's correct however under the terms of the lease  the tire was supposed to receive a a premises that was habitable that could be used to operate the business bliss was in breach of the terms of the lease when he failed to make the repairs to the building which was the obligation of g an obvious without g n r bliss making repairs to the building under the terms of the lease it would remain in a condition of a gutted building as a result of the fire when giannopoulos failed to make the repairs to the building as obligated by the terms of the lease he was in breach of the means and when he tendered the building and it wasn't complete and he had the money to complete it g m uplifts decided on his own not to make those additional repairs that would have obligated to tire to retake possession of the premises and continue to pain rent so i think for those reasons that when i'm not familiar with the many of those cases other other than them the mcardle case ok but i but i one of the problems that i have with the force majeure detainer is that if you just simply ignore the contract that is the basis of the agreement between landlord and tenant as to what's the premises sort of the terms how do you even the stablish what the rent is and when that can cavalierly be breached by the landlord and say hey just a few go ahead and repair the building on your own just forget what i was what was said in the lease and and then try to make the tenant pay for those well that the tenant would not have a separate remedy to to repair the premises that would not be overly expensive to the tenet for the tenet to make those improvements for the benefit of a real estate that has remained owned by gian operatives who would just be it seems to me contrary to the terms of the a written contract commercial contract between these two parties what's what's the purpose of having a lease if you don't follow the terms of billie's yet if each party agrees to undertake certain obligations and responsibilities and then once they enter into the lease then they decide they don't like the terms the giannopoulos decides no i don't want to make the repairs and and so now we're going to ignore the lease and i'm just going to rely upon suggesting this is a forcible entry detainer action and that perhaps it was inappropriate based on the case law for the court to undertake this counter claim because there are separate covenants and it doesn't relieve your client of the allegation to pay rent because the repairs were made well i just i don't feel that it's inappropriate for the court to have allowed the counter claim which is for the damages that are be this is an excellent location in addition to that one would not usually anticipate that someone in mr g and a hapless position would not simply make the repairs he's obligated to make under the the terms of the lease at which point the tyo could retake possession of the of the premises and restart his business it's an optimistic sort of you know at some second floor ted and i believe that mr maser personally but his lawyer talked about the recipe for purposes of getting that second floor done he didn't have as its time went duty to get mitigate damages something independent from lease it's something that is required of anyone seeking damages is there a way to minimize the l