## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 08
- 2727 A .T .N ., I NC . , a n I l l i no i s co r po r at i o n, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v. M C A IRLAID ’ S V LI ES S TOFFE G MB H& C O . KG, a for ei gn cor pora ti on o fthe Feder alRepubli c o fGerm any, A I RLA I D A LLI ANCE S P . Z . O . O ., a j o i ntv en tu r e o fthe Re pu b l i c o fP o l a nd , an d N EW C O A BS ORBENT S G MB H & C O . KG, a for ei gn co rpor ati on o f the F edera lRepubli c o fGerm any, D efend a nts-A pp ellees.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 05 C7286

—Jo hn F. G rady, Judg e.
A RG UE D D ECE MBE R 11, 2008

— D ECI DE D F EB RU AR Y 25, 2009

Befo re M A NI ON, E VANS, a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges. M A NI ON, C ircu it Judge. Pl ai nti ffA
. T. N
. , Inc. ( “A TN ”) enter ed i nto an agre em ent with the defe nd ants to i m po r t ab so rbe ntmedi ca lunde r pads
. The a g r ee m en t contain ed a cl ause gr anti ng AT N the ri ght t o re tain i ts custo m er s a s l ong as i t purcha sed the und er pad s fro m2 N o. 08
- 2727

Bo th NewCo a nd AA we r e m aj or i t y- own e d b y M c Ai r l a i d. 1 the defendants. A ye arl ate r, the defe nd ants i nfo rm ed A T N ’s s ole cu st om er th at A T N w ou ld n o lon ge r su p p ly th e unde r pads
. ATN s ue d f o rb r ea cho f co nt r ac t an d unj us t e nr i c hme nt . ATN no w a pp e a l s fr o m the g ra nt o f su m m ary j udg m en t i n f av o ro fthe de fen dan ts o n the b r e a c h o fc o n t r a c tc l a i m. We A F F I R M.
I. ATN i s anI l l i no i s corp or at i o n tha t pr o vi des fi na nc i ng an d m ar k et i ngs er vi ce s to o th erb us i ne ss es . Its pr es i den t and sol e s hare hol der i s Yos siA za ra f
. In 200 3, A zar af becam e inter est ed i n “abs orbent c or es, ” which ca n be us ed to make hy g i en e pr o duct s su cha s ab so rbe nt und er pad s foruse i n m edi calfac iliti es. These cor es w ere m an ufac tu red by d efend an t M cA irlaid’s Vliesstoffe G m bH & Co. K G ( “M cA irlaid”), a G erm an m an ufac tu rer. I n ear l y 2 004, A zar aftr avel ed to Germ any a nd m et w i th A lex M ak sim ow , th e c h i e f ex ec u tiv e o ffice r an d so le s ha r e ho l de ro fMcAi r l a i d. In S e pt e mbe r2 0 0 4 , Az a ra f re turned t o Germ any with R obe rtS hapir o, a potenti al i nve s t o r, a nd a g a i n metwi th M a k s i mow a nd r e pr e s e ntat i v e s f r o m d e fe n d a n tNe wC o Ab s o rb e n t s G mb H & Co. KG ( “N ew Co”) , a Germ an m anufa c ture r that used M c Ai r l a i d’ s ab s o rb e ntc o r e s t o ma k e the u nd e r pad s, an d from de fend an t A irl aid A ll iance S p .z . o. o. ( “A A ”), a Po l i sh su ppl i er o f m ac hi ne r y ne ce ss ary to m ak e abs orbent cor es and fini shed products w i th tho se cor es. 1N o. 08
- 2727 3 F o l l o wi n gth i s me e t i n g, o n S e p t e mb e r2 4 , 2 0 0 4 , AT N, N ew Co, M cA i rl ai d, and A A si gned a thre e- page “ Le tte r ofIntent. ” T h e pream bl e t o the Let tero fIntent sta ted that “A TN w i shes to devel op sal es of hy gie n e products i n the N or th A m er i can m ar ketbased on fi ni shed products m anufa cture d b y N ew co a com pany affi l i ate d w i th M c Ai r l a i ds an d AA
. ” The l e t t e rs t a t e d tha t“ ATN i nt e nd s to i nsta ll” m anufa cturing equi pm ent in the U ni ted St ate s to cre ate the abso rbe nt cor es and t o m ake fini shed pr o duct s fr o m the m . The c o m pan i es a l so a g r ee d tha t “ATN w i l luse i ts besteff or ts to ra pidl y develop sa l es of f i n i s h e d p r o d u c t s ma d e b y N e wc o A b s o rb e n t s . ” N e wCo g r a nt e d ATN “ e xc l us i v e r i g ht s t o ma nu f a c t ur e the p r o ducts in N or th A m er i ca fora peri od of 12 m onths fro m th e dat e o f th i s ag r ee m en t. ” F i na l l y, par ag r aph 7 of th e l et te rs ta te d tha t “[ c] us to m er s o fATN w ho pur ch as e th e product s w i l lr em ai n excl usi ve to A TN f oras l ong as th eyc o nt i nue t o pur ch as e t he pr o duct s fr o m ATN a nd A T N p u rchases the pr oducts fro m N ew co i n the agr eed q u an tit ies .” Despite the Le tt ero fInt en t, ATN di d no t i ns ta l la ny m anufa cturing equi pm ent. A T N d i d find a custo m erf or the fi ni shed products: nam el y, M edl i ne Ind ustr i es, Inc. (“M ed lin e” ), a d ist rib u to r of m ed ica l p ro d u c ts . A T N so ld products t o M edl i ne unti lDecem b er 20 05, wh en M ak si m o w w r ote to ATN t o e nd the i rb us i ne ss r el at i o nsh i p. The l et te rs ta te d that “ we ha ve i nf o r m ed M edl i ne that i ftheyhave furtherr equi re m ents, theysho uld pl ace the o rder s with M c A i rl ai ds dir ect and they have agr eed to thi s. ” M edl i ne s en t an em ai lto A TN , st ating tha t N ew C o h ad cla im ed th at A T N w ou ld n o lon ge r b e a b le to sel li ts products.4 N o. 08
- 2727 A TN r es p on ded byfi l i ng sui t a gainst defendants M cA i rl ai d, N ew Co, and A A , cl ai m i ng tha t the defendants h ad br ea c h ed th e i r c o n tr ac t w ith A T N an d h ad u nj u st ly enri ched them sel ves. N ew Co fi l ed co u nter cl ai m s a gainst A T N for b re ach o fco ntra ct a nd unj ust e nri chm ent. U pon thei r m oti on, the distric t co urt gr anted sum m ar y j ud gm en t f o rthe de fen dan ts o n b o tho fATN ’ s cl ai m s. The p a r t i e s s u b s e q u e n t l y s e t t l e d N e wC o ’ s c o u n t e r c l a i ms an d a fin al jud gm en t w as en te re d . A T N ap p ea ls, s o l e ly ch al l en g i ngthe g r ant o f su m m ary j udg m en t f o rthe d e fe n d a n t s o n i t s b r e a c h o fc o n t r a c tc l a i m.
II. The dis tr i ct c ourthad j uri sdic ti on o vert h is di ver si ty sui t be tw een a n I l l i noi s e nti ty and forei gn ent i ti es und er 28 U
. S. C. § 1332( a) ( 2)
. The di str i ct c ourtappli ed the l aw o f th e for um s ta te , I l l i no i s. Be ca us e th e par ti es do no t co ntest th e ap p li cation of I ll inois l aw , w e ap p ly t h a tstate’s law as w ell. E m p lo y ers M ut. Ca s. Co
. v. Skoutaris , 45 3 F
. 3d 91 5, 92 3 ( 7th Ci r . 20 06 )
. W he n i nt er pr et i ng a co ntract, “[t] he prim ary obj ective of the cou rt i s to de term i ne a nd g i ve e ffec t to the i nt en t o fthe p ar ti es a s ex press ed i n the l anguage of th e p oli cy. ” C la yto n v . M illers First Ins. C o s. , 892 N .E .2 d 61 3, 61 5 (Ill. A p p . C t. 20 08 ). A r ev i ewi ngc o ur t wi l l“ as su m e th ate ve r y p r o vi si o n in the contr act ser ves a purpose ” a nd the contr act shoul d be “co nstr ued as a wh ol e. ” Id
. A TN cl ai m s that the def en d ants bre ached the contr act by preve nti ng i t fro m m akin g fu tu re sa l es to M edl i ne, th er eb y v i o l a tin g t h e t er m s o f th e e x c lu siv ity cla u se inN o. 08
- 2727 5

NewCo c l a i m s tha tATN h a s wa i ve d thi s a r gu m e ntby 2 failing to ra ise it i n th e d istrict c o u r t . A T N resp on d s that it di d ra i s e the ge ne ra l i s sue o f the m ea ni ng o fthe pr ovi s i on. B ecaus e we c onc l ude thatATN c ann otobt ai n r el i efe venif A T N p r e se r v e d th i s is su e a n d th e is su e w e r e r e so l v e d in A T N ’s fav or , w e ne ed no t d ecid e w he the r A T N ha s w aiv e d this arg u m en t. par ag r aph7
. Tha t cl au se s ta te s th at “[ c] us to m er s o fATN w ho purch as e the pr oducts wil lr em ai n excl usi ve to ATN f o ra s l ong a s th eyc o nt i nue t o pur ch as e th e pr o du c t s fr o m ATN a nd ATN p ur c ha s e s the p r o du cts from N ew co in the agreed qu an titi es.” Th e d istri c t cou rt rej ecte d this cl ai m , co ncl ud i ng tha t “ agr eed quanti ti es” re fer re d to am oun ts t h at A TN ag re ed to purchase fro m N ew C o. B ecau se th e pa rties had l eft open a m aterial term i n the c o nt r ac t, the di st r i ctcou rtc o nc l ude d tha t th e parti es did noti ntend f orthe excl usi vi ty cl ause to be bind ing. A T N argue s on ap p eal that th e d istri ct cou rt m i sint er pr et ed par ag r aph7o fthe Le tt ero fInt en t an d conte nd s that “ag re ed quanti ti es” re fer s to am ounts a g r e e d t o b e p u r c h a s e d b y c u s t o me r s fr o m A T N
. At 2 fi r stb l us h, ATN ’ s ar g um en t se ems t o ha ve mer i t. The fi r stpa r t o f par ag r aph7r efer s to c us to m er s pur ch as i ng products fro m A TN
. Par agr aph 7 the n i nd i cate s that these custo m er s wil lrem ai n custo m er s o fA TN as l ong as they pu rchas e “ the pr oducts” fro m A TN and A TN then pu rchas es “the products” fro m N ew Co. The o nl y a gr eem ent m enti oned i n parag ra ph 7 pri orto the phrase “ag re ed qu an titi es” is the agreem en t betw eenth e cus tom ers an d A T N
. I t i s no t unr ea so nabl e to c o nc l ude tha t th e6 N o. 08
- 2727

ATN al s o de vel ops a s epa ra t e ar gum en t tha tthe r el eva nt 3 s en t en c e es t abl i s he s a “r equi re m en t s c ont ract” with NewCo, u nd er w hich N ew C o w ou ld b e req u ired to p r o v i d e A T N all the pr oduc t s ne c es s ar y f or ATN t o ful fill its or der s . Al though A TN couches this i nter pretat ion as dist inctfrom the i nter
p reta tion d escrib ed ab ov e, i t seem s that A T N ha s m erely reprodu ced the sam e int erpret ati on in a different guise. T hat is, un d er A T N ’s read ing of the relev an t senten ce, AT N w ou ld be obl i ge d t o tur n t o NewCo f or the or der ed pr od uc t s , an d N e w C o w ou ld b e ob liged to su p p ly A T N w ith th e p ro d u cts ne c es s ar y to fulfi l l i t s or der s . Nonethe l es s , r eg ar dl es s of whethe r thi s i s a s epa ra t e ar gum en t orj us ta re - pac kagi ng o f its orig ina l interp reta tion , A T N is no t entitled to r e l i ef, as w ill b e s h o wn b e l o w. phr as e “a g r ee d qua nt i ti es ” r efe r s to the o nl y a g r ee m en t p revi ousl y m enti oned: nam el y, the agr eem ent b etween th e cus to m er s and A TN
. Underthi s i nt er pr et at i o n, ATN w oul d be obl i ged to purchase al lthe pr od u c ts o rder ed by i ts cu stom er s fro m N ew Co, under pai n ofl osing i ts ex clusive relationsh ip w ith th ose cu stom ers. H ow ever, 3 i t i s unneces sar y forus t o re sol ve t hi s i ssue, bec ause r e g a r dl e s s o fi t s o ut c o me the c o nt r a c tc a nn o tb e e nfo r c e d. Even i fwe w er e to r ead para gr aph 7 o fthe Lettero f I ntent as A TN posi ts, we m ust s till affi rm the dist ri ct cour t’ s g ran t of s um m ar y j ud gm ent forthe defe nd ants b ec au se th e L et te r of In te n t w as t er m in ab le at w ill. Illino is law ge n er ally d isfa vo rs p er p et u al c on tr ac ts . Je s pe rs on v. M i nn. M i ni ng & M

f g. , 700 N
. E
. 2d 1014, 101 7 ( I ll
. 1998). F o r thi s r e a s o n, c o n t r a c t s o fi n d e fi n i t e d u r a t i o n a r e g e ner ally d ee m e d t er m in ab le a t w ill by e ith er p ar ty . Id
. atN o. 08
- 2727 7 1016
. A s the I ll inois Su p r em e C ou rt exp lai ns , “W he re par ti es h av e f ai l ed to a g r ee o n a c o nt r ac t’ s dur at i o n, the contr act i s co ns trued as t er m i nabl e a t the wil lo fei ther p ar t y be c au se th ey h av e n otag re ed oth er w ise an d it w ou l d be inapp ro pri ate f ora cour t t o ste p i n and subst itu te it s o w n j u d gm en t fo r th e w isd om of th e p ar tie s.” Id
. a t 10 17
. “ Ad va nc es i n t echno l o g y, c ha ng es i n c o nsu m er ta st e a n d co m p et itio n m ea n th at on c e-p ro fita b le bu sin e s ses p erish regu larl y. T od ay’s fashion w il l tom orr o w orthe ne xtda y ine vi tabi l i tyf al lthe wayo fthe buggywh i p, the ei ght-t ra c k t ape and the l ei sure sui t. M ena nd women o fcom m er ce kno w thi s i ntui ti ve l y a nd achi eve the fl exibi l i ty needed to re spon d t o m ar ketdem ands by enter i ng i nto agr eem ents ter m i nabl e a t- w i l l
. ” Id
. H owever, i f an othe rwis e i nd efi ni te contr act i s t er m i nabl e upon the o ccurr ence ofa speci fi c ev ent, then i t i s no t c on sid er ed te rm in ab le a t w ill. Id
. a t 1016
. Thi s ev en t m ust be “a n obj ecti ve eve nt, the occu rre n c e o fwh i ch te rm in at es th e c on tr ac t t h e r e b y m ak in g it s u fficie n tly defini te i n durati on. ” R .J.N . Co rp. v. C o nn elly F o o d P rod s., Inc. , 5 29 N. E. 2d 118 4, 1 18 7 ( I l l
. App. Ct
. 1 98 8) ( quo ta ti o ns and c i ta ti o ns o m i tt ed)
. Thu s, we m us t det er m i ne w hether t h e e xcl usi vi ty cl ause w as ti ed to a speci fi c, ob j ec tiv e e ve n t t h at w ou ld r e n d er th e a gr ee m en t s u ffici entl y defi ni te i n durati on. I fi t was, then the defen d an ts coul d not t er m in at e the co ntra ct without g i vi ng r i se to a ca us e o fa ct i o n fo rb r ea ch
. I l l i noi s co urts have co nsi dered va ri ous c ontr actual t e rm s t o d et er m in e w h et h er th ey es ta b lish a sp ec ific eve nt thatwil lpre vent a c on tr act fro m being deem ed8 N o. 08
- 2727 te r m i nabl e atwi l l
. In Je s person v. M i nnes ot a M i ni ng & M a n u f a c t u r i ng Co. , 6 81 N. E. 2d 67( I l l
. App. Ct
. 1 99 7) , the I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Courte xam i ned w hethera contr act w as of i nd ete rm i nate du ra ti on and thus ter m i nabl e a t w i l l
. The co ntra ct in questi on per m i tte d one par ty to ter m i nate t h e contr act f oro ne o fse ver all i ste d m ate ri al bre aches, and al l owed the othe r party t o ter m i nate up on 30 d ay s’ w rit te n n ot ice
. Id
. at 70- 71. The I l l i noi s Ap pel l ate Court sta ted that “[ i ] f one of the parti es could i nsti tute a t er m in at ion -tr igg er in g e v e n t, th en th e c on tr ac t s h ou ld be c onsid er ed ter m i nabl e a t wil l
. ” Id
. at 70. T he cou rt he l d tha t, b ec au se o ne o fthe pa r ti es c o ul d b r ea chthe co nt r ac t an d the r eb y pr o vi de g r o unds f o rterm i na ti o n, th e ev en ts pe r m i tt i ngt er m i na ti o n c o ul d no t “be co nsi dered o bj ecti ve eve nts that would have the effect of m aking the ag re em ent s uffi c i e ntlyde finit e in du ra ti on, ” id ., an d th e c on tr ac t w as d ee m ed te rm in ab le a t w ill, id
. The I l l i noi s Suprem e Court affi rm ed f or tw o reasons . Je s pe rs on , 70 0 N
. E. 2d 10 14
. F i r st, “the l an g ua g e of th e te rm in at ion p ro vis ion is p er m iss ive an d eq u i vo c al; a p ar ty ‘ m ay’ term i nate f orthe sta ted gr ounds. ” Id
. at10 16. The I l l i noi s S up re m e Cour t co ntra ste d thi s situ ati on t o “a case i n w hi ch the parti es i ncl ud ed an excl u si ve an d sp ecifi c right to term inate for cau se in a cont ract oth erwi s e o fi nd e fi ni t e du r a t i o n. ” Id
. Secon d , the cou rt no te d tha t “the t er m i na ti o n e ven ts ar e th emse l ve s i nsta nc e s o fma t e r i a lb r e a c h, a nd any contr act i s t er m i na b le up on the o ccurr ence of a m ate ri albr each. ” Id
. T he c o ur ta pprovingl y c i ted a Fi fth C i rcui t ca se f orthe propos i ti on that “ ‘ [ a] n agr eem ent which i s o ther w i se i nd efi ni te i n durati on a nd te rm i nable at w i l lcannotbe conve rt edN o. 08
- 2727 9 i nt o a n a g r ee m en t o fde fi ni te dur ati on bythe mer e tr an sc rip tio n of su c h u n ive rs als w ith inth e t ex t o f th e c on tr ac t ” .’ Id
. at10 16- 17 ( quoti ng Trient P a rtners I Ltd
. v. B l o ck buster Entm’tCorp. , 83 F. 3d 704, 709 (5th Cir. 1996)). Underthe r at i o na l e o fb o th Je s pe rs on case s, the e xcl usi vity cla u se in p ar ag ra p h 7 of th e L et te r of In te n t w as te rm inabl e a t the wil lo fe i therparty. The cl ause sta ted th a t c us t o mer s wo ul d r e main e xc l us i v e t o ATN “f or as l ong as they continue to pu rchas e the prod u c ts fr om A T N an d A T N p u rc h as es th e p ro d u c ts from N ew c o in th e agreed qu an titi es.” Th ree even ts w ou ld th erefore end excl usi vi ty: fi rs t, the custo m erst ops purchas i ng fro m A TN ; se cond, A TN st ops purchas i ng i ts custo m er s’ re qu i r e men t s fr o m NewCo ; a nd thi r d, Ne wCo s t o ps su ppl y i ngATN
. Thu s, the c o nt r ac t per m i tt ed bo thATN and N ew Co i nd ependen tl y t o ter m i nate the c ontr act. U nd erthe tw o Je s pe rs on dec i sions , a c o nt r ac t per m i tt i ng one partyto te rm i nate base d on a m ateria l breac h by the o th er p ar ty i s deem ed ter m i nabl e a t wil l
. 68 1 N
. E.2 d at 70; 70 0 N
. E.2 d at 1 016 -17 . I n thi s ca se, bo th par ti es co ul d e nd the a g r ee m en t byno n- per f o r m an ce , a nd he nc e th es e ca se s r equi r e th e co nc l us ion tha t th e co ntr ac t w as te rm in ab le a t w ill. B e c a u s e t h e c on tr ac t t er m ina te s i fe i th erpa r tys to pp ed pur ch as i ngo rs uppl y i ng th e p r o du c t s , u nd e rI l l i no i s l a w the c o nt r a c tb e t w een A T N an d th e d e f en d an ts w as te rm in ab le a t w ill. See a lso M id-Wes t E nergy C onsult ants, Inc. v. C ovenant Hom e, Inc. , 8 1 5 N. E. 2 d 9 1 1 , 9 1 5 ( I l l
. App
. Ct
. 2 0 0 4 ) ( ho l di ngthat a c on tr ac t t h at fail e d to sp ec ify d u ra tio n w as te rm in ab le at w ill); Cre s s v. Re c r e at i on S e r vs . , Inc. , 79 5 N
. E.2 d 817, 832, 83 9- 40 ( I l l
. A pp . Ct. 20 03) ( hol ding th at a n em plo y-10 N o. 08
- 2727
m en t co nt r ac t was t i ed to a n obj ec ti ve e ve nta nd thus n o t t e r mi n ab l e a t wi l l ; th e c o n t r a c t g u a r a n t e e d th a t th e em plo yee ’ s s al ar y would notbe substa nti al l y r educed as l ong as he r em ai ned “capabl e o fper f or m i n g” h is j ob); R. J
. N. , 5 2 9 N. E. 2 d a t1 1 8 7( ho l di ngtha ta c o nt r a c twas te rm in ab le a t w ill w h en it st at ed th at “ th is a gr ee m en t w ill r emai n in e ffec t f o ra s l o nga s [ o ne p arty] s er ve s [ th e oth er’s] cu stom ers”). T h i s o u tc om e is in a c c or d w ith ou r d ec isio n in B aldw in Piano , Inc. v. D eutsc he Wurl itzer G m bH, 39 2 F
. 3d 88 1 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 4)
. In B aldw in , the parti es had w or ked un d era l i ce ns i ngc o nt r ac t f o re i g ht ee n y ea r s be f o r e th e l i ce ns o rfil ed s ui t to de cl ar e th e l i ce ns i nga g r ee m en t une nforceabl e as a c o nt r ac t o fi nde fi ni te dur at i o n. The c on tract sta ted that“thi s Agree m ent s hal lco nti nue in f or ce without l i m i t o f p er i od but m ay be c ancel l ed by the Li censo r f orm ate ri albrea c h .” Id
. at88 2. Once a m ate ri albr each occur re d, the l i censo r w as re quir ed to no ti fy the l i ce nc ee , w ho the n h ad 90 da y s to c ur e th e b r e a c h o rs eeka rb i t r a t i o n; s ho ul d the l i c e ns e e f a i lt o do ei ther, the l i censo r coul d then te rm i nate the c ontr ac t. Id
. B aldw in fou n d th is c on tr ac t t o b e s im ila r t o th at in Li ch novs ky v
. Zi e b ar tInt e r nat i onal Corp. , 32 4 N
. W
. 2d 732 ( Mi c h
. 1 9 8 2 ) , a c a s e d i s c u s s e d b y th e I l l i n o i s S u p r e me Cou r t i n Je s pe rs on . B aldw in , 3 92 F
. 3d at8 84
. In Li ch novs ky, a c on tr ac t w as d ee m ed d e f i n i te an d n otte rm in ab le a t w ill w hen one party coul d t er m i nate up on the othe r’s br each onl y a ftergi vi ng the br eachi ng par ty the o pp or tuni ty to cur e wi th i n a de fi ne d peri od
. 3 24 N. W
. 2d at7 36
- 37
. The I ll i no i s S upr eme Co ur t i n Je s pe rs on ha d f o und the c o ntr ac t i n Li ch novs ky to b e di ffer en t fr o m tha t i n Je s pers on . 700 N. E. 2d at1 01 6. Thi s co ur t i n Baldwi n f o un d that aN o. 08
- 2727 11 contr act perm i tting te rm i nati on o nl y a ftera m ate ri al bre ac h a nd f a i l ur e t o c ur e wi thin a s pe c i fi e d pe r i o d w as no t te r m i nabl e at w il l. 3 92 F
. 3d at8 86
. In c o nt r as t, the contr act between A TN and M cA i rl ai d requi re s t er m i nat i on im m ed iat ely u p on eith er p ar ty ’s re fu sa l to c om p ly w ith th e c on tr ac t. T h er efo re , th e c on tr ac t w as te rm in ab le at w ill. A TN argu es that the c ontr act w as suffi ci entl y defi ni te be ca us e i t was t er m i nabl e ba se d o n e ve nt s o th ertha n a br ea ch, na m ely w he n c us to m er s no l o ng erpur ch as ed th e products fro m A TN
. H owever, the tw o case s ci ted by ATN

— In re C om m odity M er chants, Inc. , 53 8 F
. 2d 1260 ( 7th Ci r . 1 9 7 6 ) , a nd St e i n v . Is s eKoch & Co. , 1 1 2 N .E .2 d 49 1 (Ill. A pp . Ct. 19 53)

— i nv o l ve d c o nt r ac ts tha t w ere o nl y e xp r e s s l y t e r mi n ab l e b a s e d o n e v e n t s o th e r t h a n c o mp lian c e w ith th e c on tr ac tu al t er m s, see In re First C o m m o dity M erchs. , 5 3 8 F
. 2 d a t1 2 6 2 n . 1 ( s t a t i n gth a to ne partym ay ter m i nate contr act i fthe othe r party ’ s “ fi nanci al con d iti on is f ou nd to be or becom es un satisfactory”); Ste in , 11 2 N
. E.2 d at 4 93 (c on tract w oul d end at t er m i natio n o fth e p lain tiff’s m ilita ry se rv ice ). C on ve rs ely , in thi s ca se parag ra ph 7 ofthe Letterof I ntent perm i ts ei therA TN o r N ew Co to te rm i nate the c ontr act at w i l lby si m plyr efusi ng to co m plywit h it s t er m s. A ccor dingl y, th e e x c l u s i v i t y c lau se in t h e L et te r of In te n t m ak es th is ag re em en t t er m in ab le a t w ill.
III
. Because the ag re em ent b etween A TN and the defe nd a nts w as of in d e f in ite d u ra tio n an d n otbo u n d ed by a sp ec ific12 N o. 08
- 2727
eve nt, it w as ter m i nabl e a t wil lunder I l l i noi s l aw . There

f o r e, th e defen dan ts co ul d ce as e su ppl y i ng ATN w i th o ut runni ng afoulo f the agr eem ent. A ccor dingl y, the dist ri ct cour t’ s g ra nt o fsum m ar y j ud gm ent forthe defen d an ts on AT N ’ s br each ofco ntra ct c l ai m i s A FFI RMED .

2- 25- 09