1 Mid we st als o ha d a n u nju st en r ich men t cla im in it s c o mpla int , bu t it lat er vo lun t ar ily

wit hd r ew t his c laim, so it is no t at iss ue o n a pp ea l. -1- SIXTH DIVISION Novem ber 9, 2007 No. 1-06- 1233
MIDW EST BUIL

DER D ISTRIB UTING, I NC., ) Appe al fro m the ) Ci

rcu i t Cou rt of Plai ntif f-A ppel le e, ) Coo k Count y, Ill in ois. ) ) ) No. 03 L 002292 v. ) ) LOR D A ND ESSEX , INC., ) Ho no r ab le ) St uar t A. N ude lman, Def endan t-App el l an t. ) Judge Presidin g.

JU STI CEJO SEP H G OR DO N del i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Plaint iff -a ppe llee Midwe st Builder Dist ribut ing, I nc. (Midw est ), a co mpany pr ovid ing cabi nets and appl

ia nces f or homebui

lde rs, brought suit agai

nst Lord & Essex , Inc. (Lord & Es sex ), a h om eb ui l der. P l ai n ti f f sou gh t pa y men t f or m ate rials del i v ered at def en da n t’s re qu est to defendant’s co nstru ction sites , pur suant t o a c redit information sheet signed by defendant’s representat iv

e prior t o t he execution of a seri es of subcontract or ag reements between the part ies. 1 Defe ndan t clai me d that t he credi

t inf ormation sh

eet was not a bin

din g contract and that it had ful fi ll ed all its obli gations under the subcont racto r agreements, which controlled. The case proceeded to a ben

ch trial, and the trial

court found i

n f avor of pl ai

ntif f on i ts breach of

contract claim. Fo r t he fo llowing r eas ons , w e affirm and r emand fo r t he co ur t below t o d et er mine1-06-1233

-2-

addi ti on al am oun ts o we d u n der the cre di

t i n f orm ati on sh eet. I. BACKG

ROUND Mid we st filed it s o r igin al c o mpla int o n Fe br ua ry 24 , 20 03 , wh ich wa s s ub se qu en t ly
am ended twi ce. The second am ended v erif ie d compl ai nt, whi ch n

ow fram es the i ssues, al

le ged the fol lowi ng. Lord & Essex is a corpo ration engaged in the busi ness of bui

ldi ng homes, whi

le Mi dwest is a co r po r at io n t ha t sp ec ializ es in p r o vid ing ca bine t s a nd ap plia nc es fo rho meb uild er s. So met ime in O ct o be r20 00 , Ch r ist o ph er Smit h, t he n t he co nt r ac t s ma na ge ro f Lo r d & E ss ex , sig ne d a cr ed it in form ation sh eet provided by

Mi dwest. Midwest averred this was done i n order to in

duce Mi dwest to sell goods to Lo rd & Essex on credit. The credi

t inf ormation sh

eet, which

is attached to the compl

ai nt, eli ci ts general in form ation (such

as compan

y n am e and address ), as well

as spe ci f i c cre di t-rel ated i nf orma tion (cred i t ref eren ces , ba nk r ef eren ces , and sa

l es i nf orma tion ); how ever , o nly the fo rmer sec t ion is co mplet ed, and t he cr edit -r elat ed p ar t of t he she et re mains bl ank. Ne ar the b ott om of

the sh eet, in sm all but reada bl e text, i s pri

nted the f oll owin g: “I n t he ev en t MB D, I nc . r et ain s a n a t t o rne y t o pu r su e c o llec t io n o f pa yment by su it o rin b an kr up tcy or p rob ate

pr oce ed i n gs , s el l er may re cov er re as on ab l e a

ttorn ey f ee s a n d c ost s of court and in

terest at a rate of 1 1/2% per month f rom the date pay

me nt becam e due. Th e i nf orm ati on c onta i ne d i n th i s state men

t i s p rovi de d f

or th e p urp ose

of obtaini ng, or mai

ntaini ng credit with y

ou o n beh alf of the undersigned, or per sons, fi rms, or c orp ora

ti on s i n wh ose b eh al f th e u n ders i gn ed may ei th er se v eral l y or j oi n tl y wi th others , ex ecute a

guara nty i n y our f av or. Each

und ersi gne d un ders tand s tha

t you a re1-06-1233

-3-

re l y i n g on th e i n f orm ati on pr ov i de d h

erei n (i n cl ud i n g th e des i gn ati on made a s to
owne rsh i p of property ) i n de cidi ng to gra nt or con tin ue cre di t.” Mi dwest’s compl

ai nt further al

le ged that between October 2000 and Jan uary 2001, i

t executed
v ari ous su b con tra ctor ag re em en ts w i th Lor d & Es sex , w h ereb y Mi dw est ag re ed to s el l good s to Lo r d & E ss ex fo rus e in five su bd ivisio ns w he r e L o r d & E ss ex wa s bu ilding ho mes . Co pie s o f six of th e e i gh t ag re em en ts a reatta ch ed to th e c om

pl ai n t. Thr ee main pr ovisio ns o f the subc ont ra ct or agr eement s ar e r elevant her e. First , t he contracts set o ut Lord & Essex’s standard procedure for paym ent, known as the purch

ase order do cument syst em. T he syst em wo rk s as fo llows: Lo rd & Es sex se nds o ut pur chas e o rd er s and job rel ease notice s to each subcontractor, descri bi ng i n detai l the work t o be perform ed for each house. Then, wh

en a sub contracto r deli

vers goods to a particul

ar jobs ite, a Lord & Essex repres en tati ve si gn s b oth th

e p urchase

orde r an d the c ontr

ac tor’ s j ob r

el ea se noti ceasa w ay

of i nd i ca ti ng tha t the goods ha ve be en rec ei ve d a nd are of sa ti sf ac tory qua l i ty . A l l the su bc ontr ac tor agreem ents state that t he af

orementioned documen

ts constitute “concl

usi ve ev ide nce” of the price of p er for mance by Midwe st . T hey also pr ovid e t hat Midwe st “will accep t payment base d o n t he appr ov ed , s i gn

ed Pu rc h as e O rd er

Sy ste m Doc um en t(s ) a s f ul l an d c om pl ete com pen sa ti on f or i ts work at the s pe cif i ed j ob s i te.” Fu rth erm ore, i n th e l as t si x c ontr ac ts, Mi dw es t’s

com pleti on of th e pur ch as e order d ocu

men ts i s m ade a n ex pr es s c on di

ti on pr ec eden t to pa y men t. Secon d, al l of the con

tracts prov

i de th at Mi

dwest can not com mence a ny sui t agai nst Lord & Essex more than 10 m

onths af ter “the date the work under the Agreem ent is compl eted.” Th ere i s n o rec i proc al prov i si on l i m i ti ng the pow er of Lord & Ess ex to su e. The

con tracts do not1-06-1233

-4-

specifi cally defi ne the ti me that Midwest’s work is consi dered to be “compl

eted.” Midwest has an ong oi ng duty to pe rf orm wa rra nty work f or th e 1 8-m

onth pe riod a f ter i ns tal l ati on of i ts g oods , or t he 12
- mo nt h p er io d a ft er a h o us e w it h it s g o o ds is s o ld; ho we ve r , t he las t six c o nt r ac t s a ll
con tai n a cl au se sta ti ng tha t com pleti on “ sh al l not b e e xte

nd ed or toll ed by rep ai r, re pl ac em en t, or warranty work.” T hir d, all o f t he co nt r ac t s c o nt ain an int eg r at io n c lau se t ha t r ea ds as fo llo ws : “ T his Agreem ent shal l b e construed as compl

ete and f ull y i ntegrated; that it supersedes al l prev ious understandi

ngs, represen

tations and agreem

ents between

the parties rel

ating to the subj ect matter of th i s Agreem

en t, al l of the sa me b ei ng m erged he rei n.” Pu rsu ant t o t hese subc ont ra ct or agr eement s, M idwes t deliver ed g oo ds t o L or d & E ssex, al on g w i th i n v oi ce s des cri

b i n g th e i tem s a n d th e a gr ee d- up on

pri ce s. The i

n v oi ce s a reatta ch ed to the co mplaint as well; each co ntains a not e at the bo tt om reading, “Thank you for your or der!!! The re wi l l be a 1.5% i ntere st charge on

an y i nv oic es p ast 30 d

ays.” Midwest then all

eged that Lord & Essex failed to pay for the go ods t hat Midwest deliver ed, in breac h of t he pr ovisio ns co nt ained in bo t h t he cr edit informat ion she et and t he
su bc o nt r ac t o rag r ee men t s. I t t he r efo r e r eq ue st ed r elie f in t he fo r m o f $5 8, 60 8. 88 in u np aid pr incipal, p lus 1. 5% mont hly i nt er est , c ou rt co st s, a nd at t or ney fees p ur sua nt t o t he t er ms of t he
cr ed i t i n f orm ati on sh eet. I n it s a nsw er , Lo r d & E ss ex ad mit t ed t ha t it s a ge nt Smit h sig ne d M idw es t ’s cr ed it in form ation sh eet, but it deni ed that the sheet was a bi ndi ng contract between the parties. L ord & Es sex f ur th er av er re d th at, ev en i f th e cre di t i n f orm ati on sh eet we reto b e c on si

dere d a con tra ct,1-06-1233

2 Lo r d & E ss ex als o filed a c o un t er cla im ag ain st Mid we st , alle gin g t ha t Mid we st o we d it backch arges f or late deli

very of goods under the subcontractor agreements. However, the trial
co ur t r eje ct ed t ha t cla im, a nd Lo r d & E ss ex do es no t co nt es t t his fin din g o n a pp ea l. -5- its t er ms wo uld be s upe rse ded by the t er ms of t he su bco nt ra ct or agr eement s lat er signed by the parties; thus, the provisi

ons f or interest, att orney f

ees, and court cost s would al l b e i nva li dated. As to the subcontractor agreem ents themsel

ves, wh il e Lord & Essex a

greed that they
weresi gn ed b y th e p ar ti es , i t cl ai med th at M i dw est di

d n ot li v e u p to th ei r term s, as set f orth i n i ts two aff irm ative defen

ses. 2 Its first defense was that Midwest’s fai lure to follow the purchase
or der do cument syst em des cr ibed in t he su bco nt ra ct or agr eement s bar re d any r eco ver y by Mi dw es t. It c onte

nd ed tha t be ca us e th i s f ai l ure con sti tuted a m ateri al br each on th e p art of Mid we st , Lo r d & E ss ex ha d n o o blig at io n t o pa y fo r an y go o ds wh er e t he sys t em w as no t st r ict ly
co mplie d w it h. I t als o ar gu ed t ha t Lo r d & E ss ex wo uld be de pr ive d o f va lua ble , sp ec ifica lly bargain ed-for co nsiderat ion if the sy stem were not enf

orced as written in the contract s. Second, Lord & Essex argued that Mi dwest’s sui

t was untim

el y, si nce the contractual 10- month lim

it on suits had al

ready passed by

the time that Midwest ini tiated pr oceedings again

st Lo r d & E ss ex . Lo r d & E ss ex po int ed o ut t ha t in it s c o mpla int , Mid we st did no t alle ge t ha t it per for med any wo rk unr elat ed t o w ar ra nt ies o r r epa irs aft er Febr uar y 2002 , no r d id it p ro vide any documen tary evi dence of such work; theref

ore, since the compl

ai nt was f il ed m ore t han 10 months after Feb ruary 2002, i

t was tim e-barred. A b ench trial comm enced on Ma

rch 3, 2006. The f

irst wi tness cal le d by Mi dwest was
co mpany pr eside nt Jo hn Lo macz. No co ur t re po rt er was pr ese nt for t he first day o f tr ial; mi ssing1-06-1233

-6-

from the record is al

l of L omacz’s di

rect t estim

ony, as well as the begi

nni ng of his crossexami nation. As will

be discussed below, t here is no cert if ied by stande r’s rep or t o f the fi

rst day’s pr oc eed ings. Afte r t hat first day, Lo rd & Es sex hire d a c ou rt re po rt er t o c ove r t he r est of t he t r ial. On

the se con d da y of tri al , un de r cr oss -ex am i na ti on, Lom ac z te sti f i ed tha t aspre si de nt of Mid we st , he wa s fa miliar wit h t he bo o ks an d r ec o r ds o f t he co mpa ny. He sa id t ha t t he las t t ime that Midwest deli

vered product t o Lord & Essex was i n Novem ber or Decem

ber of 2001. He also spo ke br iefly

abo ut t he cr edit informat ion she et , sa ying that in his opinion, it w as a binding
con tract. The re

mai ni ng porti ons of hi s te sti mony l arg el y con cerned Mi dw es t’s com puta ti on of t he amo unt t hat Lo rd & Es sex o wed , a cco rd ing t o va rio us a cco unt ing do cument s pr epa re d by Mi dw est. On redi rect, Lomacz testif

ie d at len gth about t he purchase order system . The system was supposed to wo rk as fol

lows: Lord & Esse

x would s end a contractor’s job release notice and a purchase order to Midwest in the ma il . The contracto r’s j ob release notice woul d provide spe cificatio ns abo ut t he wo rk t o be do ne. When Midw est deliver ed t he r equ est ed p ro duc t s t o t he jobs ite, Lord & Essex

was supposed to sign

off on the documen

ts. He test if

ie d that Lord & Ess ex “do zens and d oz ens o f times” t oo k t he po sitio n t hat wit hou t t he signe d pa per s, it had no ob l i ga ti on to pa y Mi dw est. H owev er , on

m ul ti pl e oc ca si on s, Lor d & Es sex f ai l ed to h av e on -s i te representatives avai

la ble to sign the docum

ents. As a res

ult, there were “dozens ” of tim es that Mi dw es t de l i ve red goods bu t ne ve r got s i gnatu

res f or th ei r pu rch as e ord ers or con tractor’ s j ob
re l ea se n oti ce s. Mi

dw est h ad n o re cou rs e b ut to rep ea

ted l y ca l l an d f ax Lor d & Es sex wi th1-06-1233

-7-

request s that t he documents be si gned. In June 2001, Lo macz cal led a m eeting wi th Russ Cusim ano, Midwest’s credit manager, and Smi th to discuss the problem

s with the system: “Those documen ts weren’t bei

ng si gned, people weren’t at job si tes, and we weren’ t gett in g pai d.” Accordin g to Lomacz, Sm

ith authori

zed Cusi ma no to sign off

on certain purch

ase order system do cument s in case s whe re t her e wa s no bod y at t he jobs ite t o s ign. Lom ac z al so te sti

f i ed ab out the w arran

ty work req ui rem en t un de r th e sub con

tractor agreements, which

im posed a du ty on Midwest to fi x defectiv e pro ducts. Lord & Essex last calle d Mi dwest to perform warranty work “som etim e i n 2004.” Furtherm

ore, Lo ma

cz sai d that t he r e w er e s t ill unr es o lve d w ar r an t y iss ue s be t we en t he pa r t ies ; s inc e L o r d & E ss ex ha d n o t pa id for the goods deli

vered, Mi dwest refused to perform f urther warranty work. Next , Mid wes t called S mith as a n adve rse wit ness. Smith t est ifi ed t hat in 200 0–0 2, he
was em ploy ed at Lord & Essex as b ot h contract man ager and production m

anager; hi s key

duties
we r e h irin g s ub co nt r ac t o r s, mo nit o r ing t he ir p er fo r man ce , an d e nfo r cin g t he t er ms o f t he ir
con tra cts . H en

ce , he w as

th e on e w h o kn ew th e m ost ab out h i s c om pa n y ’s de al i n gswi th Mi dwest. John Popp, later iden tif ie d as the presi

dent of Lord & Essex , was rarely on the actual jobsit es a nd t hus r elied hea vily upo n informat ion p ro vided by S mith. Smith t est ifi

ed t hat he wa s in char ge o f nego t iating t he pr icing and p ro duc t spe cificatio ns wit h Mid we st . He ad mit t ed t o sig ning t he cr ed it info r mat io n sh ee t . Ho we ve r , he sa id t ha t he did not read it bef

ore sign in g it, si nce Todd Fouch, the hal

f owner of

Mi dwest at t he tim

e, assured hi m that “ this was onl y s o you [Midwest] can do a credit background ch eck. End of story.” Co unse l for M idwes t t hen impeac hed S mith wit h his ear lier de po sitio n t est imony in which he1-06-1233

-8-

sta ted th at h e h ad re ad th e sh eet. Sm i th also d i sc us se d th e s ub con tra ctor ag re em en ts s i gn ed b y th e p ar ti es , te l l i n g th e c our t, “my co nt ra ct s re fer t o w hat t he sp ecificat ions – what you a re sup po sed t o d o. ” De scr ibing the contrac ts i n gr eater detail , he

sai d, “wh at we b asi

cal l y prepa red was the

l ay out, pri ci ng, d el i very dates , col ors, sty

l es, product bran

d of appl i ances .” Smi th then spoke about the im port ance of

the purchase order system. Pursuant to Lord & Essex’ s standard bus in

ess practic e, Smi

th threw away

all Midwe st in

voic es he rece iv

ed. He said, “I am v ery specifi

c when I say

we paid off

our purchase or der with the cont racto r’s job rel ease noti ce, wh

i ch shows al l the options.”

As a res ul t, he expl ai ne d, sub contrac

tors’ own i nv oic es a re i rre l ev an t to pa y m en t, a n d h e te l l s s ub con tra ctor s th

i s w h en th ey ar e en ter i n g i n to co n tra cts wi th h i m . H owev er , w

h en aske d w h eth er a s i gn ed pu rc h as e order w as

al wa y s n ec es sa ry f or p ay men t, he resp onde d, “

No. I pay

off of the con

tractor j ob rel

eas e notice , unl

ess there i s som ethi ng v ery spe cial goi ng on .” As fo rt he co ur se o f p er fo r man ce wit h M idwe st , S mit h t es t ifie d t ha t he di d n o t alw ays follow contract pro cedures to t he l etter ; i nstead, he sa

id that “Russ [Cusi

ma no] and I had an agreem ent, yes , and we were workin g very well.” W

hen dis crepanci

es arose between L ord & E ss ex ’s pa pe rwo r k a nd Mid we st ’s cla ims a bo ut wh at go o ds it ha d d elive r ed , Smit h w o uld per so nally go o ut t o t he su bdivisions a nd t ake a physical invent or y of t he r elevant hou ses. If t he go o ds we r e p r es en t , t he n S mit h w o uld ca ll up Cu sima no , wh o wo uld wr it e “ o ka y pe rCh r is Smi th” on the contracto r’s j ob release notices (though according to Smi th, Cusi ma no was nev

er au t ho r ize d t o sig n fo rhim)
. Cu sima no wo uld t he n r et ur n t he do cu men t s t o Smit h fo rhis1-06-1233

-9-

signature. Ask ed wh et he rt he r e w er e o cc as io ns w he r e n o Lo r d & E ss ex r ep r es en t at ive wa s a va ilable on si te to sign docum

ents, Smi th responded, “On

ly if I fi red them.” A

t fi rst, he denied that he had do ne an y su ch t hing
. Up o n fu r t he rqu es t io ning , Smit h a dmit t ed firin g B o b R emic lub , a fie ld supe rvisor f or Lord &

Esse x, f or not doi ng h i s j ob corre ctl

y . He al so stated that he had h

eard compl ai nts from Mi dwest about lack of on-si te representatives, b

ut his workers to ld h

im that those report s were untrue. Smi th als o t estif

ie d that he bel

ie ved there were still

jobs that Midwest had not comple ted. Sp ea kin g a bo ut billing dis ag r ee men t s t ha t Lo r d & E ss ex ha d w it h Mid we st , Smit h sa id, “I t wa s in
re ga rd to th e del

i v er y sh owi n g u p w i th out pur ch

as e orders , s h ort del

i v eri es , not b ei

n g a b l e to clos e ho use s o n t ime, bac k cha rg es r ega rd ing plumber s making t rips, co unt er t op peo ple making tri ps , a n d c ab i n ets n ot co m pl ete , n um erous occ as i on s. ” H e a

l so s ai d th at prob l em

s a ros e wi th

“ sh ortage s [ an

d] wa rra n ty i tem s, ” a n d th at “ n ot al l of th em ” h ad b een cor re cte d. H owev er , Sm

i th al so adm i tted that the

re were ti mes w hen L ord & Es sex

wasuna bl e to keep precise del

i very re co rd s. H e ag re ed w ith co unse l’s st at ement t hat as a re sult of t his co nfusion, t her e ca me a po int where Lord & Essex

“could no longe

r determi ne wh o was suppl

yi ng what cabi

nets and wh

o was supp l y i ng w ha t appl i ances i n [Lord & Es sex ’s ] un

i ts.” Wi th respect to the jobs

that were fi

ni shed, Sm

ith told the court that Lor d & Essex had sol d al m ost al l of th e h ous es wi th Mi dw est’s good s i n th em. W h en th e h ous es weresol d, t i tl e to the cabin ets and applian

ces passed to the buyers. Mi dw es t the n c al l ed Le e A nn Lom ac z to the s tan

d. H er exa

ct re l ati on to th e p arti esi s n ot1-06-1233

-10-

fully app ar ent fro m the r eco rd , bu t she is ident ifi ed w itho ut objec t ion in t he pa rt ies’ br iefs as t he wi f e of John Lom acz . Lee An n L oma cz testif i ed th at she del

i vered goods

f rom Mi dwest to Lord & Essex ’s j obsi

tes around 15 to 20 tim

es. More than once, when she arri ved at the j obsi

te, nobo dy fro m Lor d & E ssex w as p re sent t o s ign her pur chas e o rd er . Whe n t his happ ened , she would si mpl y w rite “De li vered by Lee” on her pick ticket (later expl ai ned b y Midwe st’s counsel
as a Midwes t docum en t in di cati ng d el i very of g oods). Midwe st ’s final witne ss wa s Pa ulet t e De bar t olo , o per at ions mana ger of Midw est for t he past 7 1/2 years. Sh

e testif ie d about Midwest’s accountin g procedures and the way in whi ch Mi dw es t cal cul ate d the a

moun ts th at w ere sti l l owi ng . Du ri ng cros s- exam

i na ti on, cou ns el f or Lord & Ess ex que sti one d the accura

cy of he r doc um en ts; Deba rtolo ad m i tted th at s he wa s n ot famil iar w ith t he co nt ra ct and d id no t kno w whe t her t he invoice pr ices mat ched t hos e in the
con tra ct. A t the cl ose of Mi dw es t’s ca se , Lor d & Ess ex move d f or a d i rected ve rdi ct. The moti on wa s den i ed i n i ts e n ti re ty . Th e j udge told c ounse l

f or M i dw est th at th

e ti me h ad com e f or th em to ch oose be twe en proc ee di ng on a con tract the ory

an d a n u njus t en rich men t the ory ; c oun se l

f or Mid we st vo lun t ar ily wit hd r ew t he ir u nju st en r ich men t cla im. Lord & Essex then

opened i ts defense by

calli ng Sm ith to the stand. Smi

th testifi ed that earl i er, wh en he spoke of work that M i dwest had l ef t undon e, h e was ref erri ng to wa rran ty work. He said that Midwest’s la st deli very under the contract was in Novem ber 2001. He al so said tha t in Novem ber 2001 he c onfi

rmed wh at Midwest had or had not deli vered by taking a phy si cal invento ry o f all house s whe re Midwe st was sup po sed t o p ro vide go od s. O n cr os s-e xaminatio n,1-06-1233

-11-

Smi th was i mpe ached b

y h is August 2005 deposition testim ony i n wh ic h he had stated that he was
n ot s ur e ex ac tl

y wh at c ab i n ets an d a pp l i an ce s h ad b een de l i v ered b y Mi dw est. Lord & Essex n

ext calle d John Lom

acz as an adverse wi

tness. He testif

ie d that he was not pres en

t when M i dwes

t vice pre siden

t Fouch pres en ted the credi t in f orma tion sheet to Sm

i th. As fo rt he effe ct o f t he she et , he sa id t ha t Mid we st will t ypic ally r un a c r ed it ch ec k o n c r ed it app licants by cons ult ing Dun & Bra dst re et or calling vendo rs t hat t he ap plicant is wo rk ing wit h; he be l i eved tha t som e k i nd of cre di t chec k had

be en done on Lord & Ess ex , but he di d n

ot know the det ails. Once the check was complete and Midwest decided t o accept Lord & Essex as a
cr edit or , Mid wes t sent a let t er t o L or d & E ssex c ont aining t he t er ms on w hich cre dit was being off ered. Fi nal ly , Lord & Essex cal

le d its presi

dent Popp t o t estif

y. Popp conf

irm ed Lomacz ’
ea rl i er testi mon y ab out th e w ay i n wh i ch th e pur ch

as e order d ocu

men t sy ste m wa s s uppos ed to work , str essin

g the fact t hat the Lo rd & Essex supervisor is n ot supposed t o sign any

purchase order b ef ore conf i rm i ng th at the s ubc ontractor has del

i vered al l material as re qui red b y contract. He a lso s aid t hat payment is based so lely on Lo rd & Es sex’s do cument at ion, not on invo ices se nt by subcontractors such as Mi dwest. The reason he gav e for thi s procedure was that it was necessary to prevent fraud: “The only way I would know [if

a subcontract or had deliv ered go ods] i s b y rev i ew i ng the i nv oi ci ng to make sure

tha t weha ve si gned pur ch as e ord er a nd a s i gned j ob releas e notice .” On cr o ss - ex amina t io n, Po pp be ga n by c o nt en din g t ha t Lo r d & E ss ex ha d p aid fo rall goo ds for which

Midwest had subm

itted t he proper sign

ed docu men

tat ion. Counsel f

or Midwest1-06-1233

-12-

then presen

ted a document f

rom Lord & Essex , dated February 2002 and regardi

ng the contract wit h Mid we st , st at ing , “O ur r ec o r ds sho w w e a gr ee d w it h $ 12 , 25 2. 58 in o ut st an din g p aya ble pu r ch as e o r de r s. ” P o pp co nc ed ed t ha t t he amo un t ha d n ev er be en pa id t o Mid we st an d w as st ill owing. Popp reemphas iz ed the i mportance of the purch

ase order system, stating that a si gned contrac tor’s j ob rel

eas e notice

wi thout a si gne d purcha se orde

r i s i ns uf f i ci en t for pa y men t. How ever, he

tes ti f i ed tha t he doe s n ot sp en d m uc h ti me on the j obs i tesan d m us t rel y he av i l y on re po rt s fro m employees in the field. Henc e, altho ugh he had no t hear d abo ut insta nces wher e no Lord & Essex represe

ntative was ava il abl e to sign purch

ase order system docum

ents, he adm

itted that he would n

ot necess aril

y kn ow if such a thi

ng ha d happen ed. On Ma rc h 13, 200 6, t he t rial co ur t issued a judg ment in favo r o f Midwes t , r uling t hat t he
cre di t i nf orm ati on s he et w asan

i nd ep en de nt, bi nd i ng con tract req ui ri ng Lord & Ess ex to pa y f or all goo ds bo ught on c re dit , a nd also ru ling tha t its t er ms wer e no t co nt ro lled or sup er sed ed by t he l ater s ub con

tractor ag ree men ts. The cou rt ex pl i ci tl y res ted i ts dec i si on u pon the cre di bi l i ty of Lomacz’ testim

ony, as well a s the credi

bi li ty of Mi dwest’s accounti

ng docum ents presented at trial when compared to Lord & Essex’s docum ents. The court subsequentl y ordered Lord & Essex to pay $128,697.73, refl ectin g prin ci pal , in terest, atto rney

fees , and costs all

owed under the credit i

nf ormation sh

eet. It cal cul ated the amount of pri nci pal owed based on the i

nvoi ces pr es en t ed by Mid we st at t r ial. Be ca us e t he t r ial c o ur t ba se d it s r ulin g o n t he cr ed it info r mat io n sh ee t , it mad e n o ex plic it find ing as t o t he ex t en t o f Mid we st ’s co mplia nc e w it h t he pu r ch as e o r de rsys t em, no rdid it ap ply1-06-1233

-13-

the 1 0-m onth l i m i tation on su i ts aga i nst Lord & Es sex

contai ne d i n the su bc ontractor ag

reem en ts. However, in

passi ng, the court indi

cated that t he 10-m

onth tim e lim it m igh t be in val id un der pr inciples o f equ ity, a t least t o t he ext ent t hat it d id no t allow t he de adline t o be t olled by Midwest’s warranty work r equirem ents. It is undisp ut ed in t he pa rt ies’ br iefs tha t aft er t he final judgment was hande d do wn, t he trial judge retired and the origin

al trial exh ibits were thrown away. These trial exh ibits are l is ted and br iefly

des cr ibed in t he t rial t ra nscr ipt , t hou gh o f co ur se no t fully det ailed. Seve ra l of t he
ex hibit s c o nt ain co rr es po nd en ce be t we en Mid we st o fficia ls a nd Lo r d & E ss ex o fficia ls ( in pa rti cul ar, seve

ral l ette rs f rom Cu si man o to Sm i th) , th ough

the rec ord w e h

ave i s l arg el y si l en t on the contents of these l

etter s. Al so in

cl uded are Midwest’s i

nvoi ces f or appliances de li

vered, as well as co nt ra ct or ’s job r elease not ices signe d by Lo rd & Es sex a nd var iou s lengt hy acco unt ing docum en ts f rom both si

desthat the

court use d f

or purpose s of

dam age c omp utati on. Lo rd & Es sex be late dly submitt ed a pr op os ed byst ande r’s re po rt re gar ding t he missing firs t da y’s t es t imo ny an d t he ex hibit s p r es en t ed o n t ha t da y t o t he co ur t , pu r su an t t o I llino is Su pr em e C our t Ru l e 3 23 (c ) (2 10 Il

l . 2d R. 32 3( c) ), a

l ong w i th a m oti on re qu esti n g th e c our t to certif y i ts report. Mi

dwest respon

ded b y f i l i ng a n ob j ection, i n w hi ch i t urged th at the c ourt should deny

certif ic ation of an

y b ys tander’s report because the onl y judge present at trial

had
r et ire d; in t he alt er na t ive , Mid we st als o su bmit t ed it s o wn pr o po se d b yst an de r ’s r ep o r t , wh ich it stated w as m

uch more acc urate a nd c omp l ete tha

n the one provi ded b y Lord & Esse x. Th e court ref use d to certi f

y ei ther proposed re

port, though

both of the proposals hav e b een

i nc l uded as p art of the supplem

ental record. Furthermore, Midwest decli ned to stipulate to the cont ent of the first1-06-1233

-14-

day ’s testim

ony or to t he contents of the discarded exh ibits. Henc e, Lord & Essex proceeded wit h t he ap pea l witho ut a byst ande r’s re po rt , a nd we ar e left t o d ecide t his case wit hou t any confi rmed record o f the f

irst day’s proceedings.

II. AN AL YSIS A. Ef f ect of the In com pl ete Re cord Before we reach the substant iv e issues of this case, there is a pro cedural matter t hat must fi rst be reso lv

ed: the impact of the missin g fi rst day’s test im

ony and trial

exhi bi ts. Midwest arg ue s th at d ueto thi s g ap i n th e re cord , we

l ac k the a

bi l i ty to mea ni ng f ul l y as se ss the meri ts of the ca se an d there f ore h ave n o ch oi cebu t to af f i rm the de ci si on of the cou rt b el ow. In s upp ort of this contention, it cites the stat emen ts by the trial court indicating that t he credib il ity of the fi rst day’s t est imony and t he co nt ent s o f the exhibits w er e mat er ial to its d ecisio n. Lo rd & Es sex, h owev er , c on

ten dsth at th e r ec ord pr es en ted i s s uf f i ci en t f or u s to de l i

v er su b sta n ti v e j udgm en t. It is the app ellant’ s du t y to pr ese nt t he co ur t wit h a pr op er re co rd on a ppe al, so t hat t he court has an

adequate basis f

or reviewi ng the decisi on bel

ow. Cooper v. United Development Co. , 1 22 I ll. App. 3d 8 50, 860 , 4 62 N .E .2 d 62 9, 636 (1 984 ). Unde r I lli nois law , if the re is no di rect tran scri

pt of the tri al

procee di ngs , the a ppel l an t ma y prepa re a b y stan der’ s rep ort
su mmar izing t he ev en t s t ha t o cc ur r ed , bu t su ch r ep o r t may no t be inc lud ed in t he r ec o r d u nle ss it i s ce rtif i ed b y the c ourt or unl

ess the p arti es stip

ul ate to it. 210 Il

l . 2d R. 3 23(c). When t her e is a g ap in t he r eco rd t hat co uld have a mat er ial im pac t on t he o ut co me of t he
cas e, t he r eviewing c ou rt will presu me tha t t he missing evidenc e su ppo rt ed t he judg ment o f the1-06-1233

-15-

tria l court an d res olv e an y doubts agai nst the ap pel l an t. In re Marriage o

f Ro gers , 213 Ill . 2d 129 , 14 0 n.2 , 82 0 N. E. 2d 3 86, 392 n.2 ( 200 4); Cooper v. United Development Co. , 122 Ill . App. 3d at 860 , 46 2 N. E. 2d at 636 ; Tekansky v. Pearson , 263 Ill . App. 3d 759, 764, 635 N.E. 2d 605, 609 (1994). Ho wever, i

n i nstances where the court has al

l the e vi dence i t needs to make a proper deci si on on the me

rits unde r the appropriate standard of revi ew, the court ma

y un dertake sub stan tiv e an al y si s of the c ase ev en i f the re cord i s n

ot ful l y com pl ete. Gonella Baking Co. v. Clara’s Pasta Di Casa, Ltd. , 337 Ill . App. 3d 385, 388, 786 N.E. 2d 1058, 1061 (2003) (revi ewi ng a trial court ’s rul

in g on a m ot ion to dismi

ss despi te appell ant’s f ai lure to provide a tra n scri pt of th e h ea ri n g on th e m oti on , re as oni

n g th at th e p l eadi n gsan d suppor ti n g docu men ts
wer e sufficient gro unds fo r a d ecision); In re Marriage o f Ward , 282 Ill . App. 3d 423, 430, 668 N.E .2d 149 , 15 3-5 4 (1 996 ). Th

e te st to b e a

ppl i ed i s w he the r “thi s c ourt is i

n th e s am e p osi ti on as the tri al

court” wi

th res pect to the l

egal l y operati ve f acts of the c ase . Gonella Baking Co. , 337 Ill . App. 3d at 388, 786 N.E .2d at 1061. Lo rd & Es sex t ake s t he po sitio n t hat t he co nt ent of t he missing first day’s t est imony and the d i sca rded exh i bi ts woul d be una bl e to af f ect the di sposi tion of the key

i ssues a t stake. In particular, it contends that the parties’ c ontract ual obli gations can

be deci ded de novo as a m

atter of law purely

on the basis of the text of the sub contracto r agreemen ts, without need to r eferen ce an y testi m ony or any f urthe r docum en ts that m ay ha ve be en produce d at tri al . As

a res ul t, Lord & E ss ex con cl ude s th at w e a re a bl e to u nd erta kesu bs tan ti ve rev i ew of Mi dw es t’s br each of
co nt ra ct claim under t he st anda rd ar t iculat ed in Gonella . T his arg ument is not wit hou t merit . As shal l b e di scussed i

n greater detail

bel ow, t here are i

ndeed som

e purely le gal is sues at stake that1-06-1233

-16-

are not a f f ec ted by the om i tted p orti on of

the rec ord. How ever, to the ex ten t tha t the de ci si on may be im

pac t ed by t est imony or do cument ar y exhibits t hat have no t been br ou ght befo re us, t he contents of such om

itted port ions

of the record wil

l b e presum

ed to favor Midwe st. See Cooper v. United Development Co. , 122 Ill . App. 3d at 860, 462 N.E .2d at 636
. As s ha ll be mo r e fu lly discu ssed below , t his case ra ises cr itical qu est ions r ega rd ing t he co ur se o f co nduc t bet wee n t he parties wh

ic h m ay have beari

ng on i ssues of

wai ver and e stoppel, and wh

ic h can not be determi

ned solel y on the basis of the docum

ents contain

ed i n the record. Lor d & Es sex also c on ten dsth at to t

h e exten t th at th e r ec ord i s i n adeq ua te, f aul t l i es wi th Midwest for refusi

ng to stipulate to the cont ents of the t estim ony and ex

hi bi ts o ff ered o n the fi

rst day . In its repl

y b rief it ave rs that it sought to negotiate wi th Mi dwest’s counsel

but was repea tedl y reb uf f ed. Even i f thi s con tenti on we re true, i t woul d ha

ve no ef f ect on our r

uli ng. Dil i gen ce a nd l ack of f aul t are n ot excu ses

f or an a ppel l an t’s f ail ure to pres en

t an a dequate rec ord
on a ppe al. We a pply t he sa me st anda rd her e as t he co ur t did in Tekansky v. Pearson , wh er e it uph el d the d ec i si

on of the cou rt b el ow d ueto the com pletel ac k of

a c erti f i ed rec ord of procee di ngs . Tekansky v. Pearson , 263 Ill . App. 3d 759, 764, 635 N.E. 2d 605, 609 (1 994 ). The appella nt in that case cl ai

me d that his

argumen ts deserved consi

deration bec ause hi

s counsel ma de a “v ery conc erted eff

ort to procure a cour t repo rter’s servi ces f or t hi s trial .” Tekansky v. Pearson , 263 Ill . App. 3d at 763, 635 N.E .2d at 609. I n rej ectin g this argumen t, t he Tekansky court noted th

at “re gardl

ess of def endan t’s a l l eged dil i gen ce, the f act rem ai ns that a proper rep ort of proceedin

gs i s not bef

ore t hi s court. ” Tekansky v. Pearson , 263 Ill . App. 3d at 764, 635 N.E.2d at 609. It is the app ellant’ s du t y to facilitat e a fair dec ision o n t he merit s; no t wit hst anding1-06-1233

-17-

any eff ort whi ch m ay have been

expen ded by counsel for Lord & Essex, we s im ply cann ot deci de this case i f cruci al pi

eces of evidence are not preserved and brought bef ore u s. In thi s case, we h

ave som ethin g that may

well s erve as an

equi val ent of a certif

ie d bysta nder ’s r epo rt , a t least in par t : t he pr op os ed byst ande r’s re po rt s co nt ained in t he suppl em ental record. As dis cussed ab ove, we ma y n ot accept these uncerti fi

ed report s as true,
un de r Su pre me C ourt R

ule 3 23( c). A

se l f -s erv i ng rep ort pres en

ted by one of the pa rti esca nn ot be us ed ag ain st t he o t he rpa r t y un les s c er t ified o rst ipu lat ed t o . Su ch a r ep o r t is o bvio us ly
un r elia ble an d u nt rus t wo r t hy, du e t o t he lit iga nt s’ st ak e in t he o ut co me o f t he ca se . Ye t t he r e is
no a ppa re nt re aso n t hat suc h a r epo rt might no t be us ed a gainst its o wn pr op one nt ; t he pr op one nt
canno t claim that it is false o r u nre liable, since he has vo uche d fo r it s t ru st wo rt hiness by
su b m i tti n g i t. The re for e, we s hall feel free t o u se Midw est ’s ac co unt of t he first day’s e vent s t o t he
ex ten t th at i t as su re s u s th at th e iss ue s a resuf f i ci en tl y pr es er v ed i n th e r em ai n i n g r ec ord f or u s to
reach the m

eri ts of th e ca se wi thout ne ces si

tatin g an y ref eren ce to the f i rst day ’sprocee di

ngs . Mi dwest is a

dam ant that the mi ssi

ng testim ony was vi

tal to t he trial

court ’s decisi on, yet i f i

ts own report dem

onstrates t hat there is

nothin g of m aterial im port ance contai

ned i n that testim

ony, we may pro cee d wit h ou r a nalysis. In t his case , Mid wes t ’s byst ande r’s re po rt co nt ains t he t est imony of it s o wn pr eside nt , in which he discu ssed t he impact of t he cr edit informat ion she et and ad va nc ed his o pin io n o f it s le ga l impa ct . As s ha ll be d emo nst r at ed be lo w, t ha t t es t imo ny, ev en if taken as true, would not have an y b earin g upon our ultim

ate determin

ation of the status o f that i nstrumen t in the f ace of the v arious su

bc ontractor ag

reem en ts that we re si gne d by the p arti es.1-06-1233

-18-

We are persuade d based on Midwe st’s own by stander’s report t hat the fi rst day’s proceedin

g, as de sc r ibe d b y Mid we st , wo uld ha ve no be ar ing up o n t his c o ur t ’s r es o lut io n o f t he iss ue s r ais ed in t his a pp ea l. Of g r ea t er co nc er n, ho we ve r , is t he mat t er o f t he miss ing t r ial e xhib it s. I f pr o pe r ly pr ese nt ed t o u s by Lor d & E ssex, t hese exhibits might have be en qu ite s ignifi cant t o o ur dec ision, because they could v

ery wel l h ave shed l igh t o n the course o f performan ce between the part ies, wh i ch i s cru ci al to th e ul ti mate i ss ue of l i ab i l i ty . Th e p oten ti al si gn i f i ca n ce of th es e docu

men ts shal l be more f ull y developed l

ater. F or now, i

t wi l l suf f i ce to say that the gap i n the docum

en tary
r ec o r d is su fficie nt ly se r io us t ha t we ca nno t fully r ea ch t he mer it s o f t he ca se , an d t hu s o ur o nly pr op er co ur se is t o a ffi

rm o n t he issue of liabili

t y. Ho weve r, as sha ll also be d et ailed in the
sec t ions t hat follow , e ven if we we re t o p ro cee d t o t he merit s o f this ca se o n t he bas is of t he li mi ted inf ormation we n

ow have, our decis ion woul d not change. B. Obl iga tions Un der the Credit Inf

ormation Sh

eet Midwe st co nt ends t hat t he cr edit informat ion she et for ms an indep ende nt and binding agreem ent for the sal

e of goods that Lo rd & Essex has b reached. In the al

ternative, i

t urges that it is al so ent itled to paym

ent unde r t he subcont ract or agree ments because o f Lord & E ssex’s
ac ti on s d uri n g th e c our se of perf orm an ce . O n th e oth er h an d, Lord & Es sex con ten dsth at i ts
co nt ra ct ual o bligat ions a re der ived so lely f ro m the s ubco nt ra ct or agr eement s; it a rg ues t hat t he
cr ed i t i n f orm ati on sh eet l ackses se

n ti al ter m s to b e a

con tra ct, an d ev en i f i t we rea c on tra ct, i ts t er ms wo uld be e nt irely supe rse ded by the lat er subc ont ra ct or agr eement s. I t also claims to have fulfille d a ll it s o blig at io ns u nd er t he su bc o nt r ac t o rag r ee men t s, du e t o Mid we st ’s failu r e t o co mply1-06-1233

-19-

wi th the term s of the purch

ase order docu

men t system . To un rav el thi s c onf l i ct, w e b eg i

n b y exam i ni ng the prov i si ons of the cre di t i nf orm ati on sheet, b eca

use thi s i s the

docum en t upon wh

i ch the tri al court prem

i sed Lord & Esse x’ s l i ab i l i ty. We shall t hen move on t o d iscuss t he effect t hat t he su bco nt ra ct or agr eement s have upo n t he credit inf ormation sheet, as well as the parties’ duties under the subcontract or ag reements. In d et er mini

ng t he pa rt ies’ o bligat ions u nder t he she et , t he first que st ion is whe t her t he sh ee t i s a sou rce of obl i ga ti ons at al l . Lor

d & Ess ex con ten dstha t Mi dw es t ha s f

ai l ed to sh ow t ha t t he cr ed it info r mat io n sh ee t co nt ain s c o nsid er at io n, wh ich is o ne o f t he mo st ba sic
re qui re men ts f or a con tra ct. Con

si dera ti on i s def i n ed as “ an y ac t or p rom

i se wh i ch i s of b en ef i t to one party or disa

dvan tageous t o t he other” – i.e., som e form of bargai ned-f or exchan ge between the p arti es. Ahern v. Knecht , 202 Il l . Ap p. 3d 70 9, 715, 5 63 N.E.2 d 787, 7 91 (19 90). Fu rth erm ore, Lord &

Ess ex con ten dstha t an y term s th at m ay be con tai ne d i n th e she et a re too neb ulous an d uncertain

to be l egally enf orceabl e. It is a wel

l-establi shed precept that for an agreem ent to be legal

ly bi ndi ng, i t must be reasonably

defi ni te and certain

in its terms . “Wh

en mate rial t er ms and c ond itio ns ar e no t asc er t ainable, t her e is no enfo rc eable c ont ra ct , e ven if the in tent t o contr act is prese

nt.” Wagner Excello Foods , Inc. v. Fearn International, Inc. , 23 5 I ll. App. 3d 224, 229-30, 601 N.E. 2d 956, 960 (1992), citin g Academy Chicago Publisher s v. Cheever, 144 Ill . 2d 24, 578 N.E. 2d 981 (1991). Ho wever, the Uni form Comm ercia l C ode (UCC) in terpret s thi s doctrine f

le xi bl y: “ Even though one or m

ore t erms are le ft open a contract fo rsa le d o es no t fail fo rind efin it en es s if t he pa r t ies ha ve int en de d t o mak e a co nt r ac t an d t he r e is
a rea sona bl y certai n b asis f or gi vi ng a n a ppropri ate rem edy .” 810ILCS 5/2-20 4(3) (W est 200 6).1-06-1233

-20-

Lo rd & Es sex a rg ues t hat cer t ain te rms es sent ial to a cr edit agr eement canno t be ascertain ed from the documen

t and, therefore, it cann

ot be consi

dered a contract. It is true that many pro visions t hat one wo uld o rd inarily expect in a cre dit agr eement ar e abs ent fro m the do cu men t : fo rinst an ce , t he r e is no st at ed du e d at e fo rpa yment s, an d t he r e is no cr ed it limit pla ce d u po n Lo r d & E ss ex . All it co nt ain s a r e b lan ks fo rge ne r al c o mpa ny info r mat io n, sp ec ific
cre di t-re l ate d i nf orm ati on, an d pr ovi si ons con cerni ng attorn ey f ee s, c ourt c osts , an

d i nte res t on
ove rdue p ay men ts. Thi s, b y i tse l f , i s n ot f atal to Mi dw es t’s pos i ti on th at the c red

i t i nf orm ati on she et is a bind ing co nt r ac t ; t he mer e fa ct t ha t mo r e t er ms c o uld po t en t ially ha ve be en inc lud ed in th e a gr eemen t doe s n ot i n v al i da te a n y ter m s th at a reac tual l y pr es en t. Nevertheless, there is a deeper im pedim ent to viewin

g the credit inf

ormation sheet as a contract: sim

ply taking the

sheet at face

val ue, it i s questiona

ble whether Mi

dwest has promi

sed
an y thi ng of va l ue to Lord &

Esse x, a s req ui red un der Ahern v. Knecht , 202 Ill . App. 3d at 715, 563 N.E.2d at 791 . C learly, by signing t he she et , Lo rd & Es sex p ledge s t hat if Midwest re t ains an atto rney to pursue co ll ection of overdue p aym

ents by s uit, then Lor d & Essex will pay f ees, co ur t co st s, an d in t er es t o n t ho se pa yment s. Ye t it is mu ch les s c lea rwh at Mid we st will d o in excha nge fo r t his pledg e. As no t ed p re viou sly, t he cr edit informat ion she et do es no t ou t line any duties that t he parties mi

ght have regarding deliv

ery of m erchandi se. It is arguabl

e that Midwest i s a gr ee i n g to s el l good s to Lor

d & Es sex , a s e

v i den ce d b

y th e u se of th e w ord “ se l l er” to ref

er to Mi dwest. A promi se to enter into a later contract – e.g. , a c o nt r ac t fo rt he sa le o f go o ds – is
suf f i ci en t con si dera ti on to ren der a

n ag re em en t b i n di n g. S ee R. Lor d, W i l l i sto n on Con tra cts §33 .2 4 ( 4t h ed. 199 9) . H ow ever , w ith no furt her elabo ra t ion, t he t er m “seller” may lack t he1-06-1233

-21-

necess ary ce

rtainty to form a l egally enf orceabl e duty. Im

agi ne, f or t he sake of

argumen t, t hat Lor d & Es sex wereto s ue

Mi dw est f or b re ach of con tra ct b as ed

on th e cre di t i n f orm ati on sh eet; tho ugh t he sheet may al

lude to cont emplated futu re sales, it wo uld be hard t o de fi ne Midwest’s duties with suf

fi cien t specifi city that Lord & Essex cou ld establ ish breach. It is therefore also
ar gua ble tha t t he cr edit informat ion she et lacks t he co nsider at ion nec essa ry t o be a binding
con tra ct. W h er e th er e is s uc h am b i gui ty an d i n com pl ete n es s i n th e docu men t i tse l f , w e m ay tur n to outsi de s ources

i n orde r to ascertai

n the i nten t of the parties. Eichengreen v. Rollins, Inc. , 325 Ill . App. 3d 517, 522, 757 N.E. 2d 952, 956 ( 2001). This i s one i nstance i n wh ic h the m is si ng trial exhibits c ont aining var iou s co mmunicatio ns bet wee n t he pa rt ies might be mate rial t o o ur dec ision: i f th ose ex h i b i ts d em on strate d th

at b oth of th e p ar ti es un ders tood th

e cre di t i n f orm ati on sh eet to ent ail a definite d ut y on t he pa rt of Midw est t o s ell goo ds t o L or d & E ssex, t hat wo uld be evi dence that Mi

dwest was genui

nel y of feri ng consi deration i n exchan ge for Sm ith’ s si gnature, whi ch could well b e suf

fi ci ent for the credi

t inf ormation sh

eet to be a v

alid c ontract . As we do not have t he r elevant exhibits a t hand, we s hall assume t hat t his gap in the r eco rd sup po rt s t he tri al cou rt rul i ng an d that the m

i ss i ng corres pon de nc e i s s uf f i ci en t to es tab l i sh

m utua l i ty of obli gation between the par ties. Ho we ve r , t he inq uir y do es no t en d w it h o ur de t er minat io n t ha t t he ag r ee men t co nt ain ed in th e cre di t i n f orm ati on sh eet i s l eg al l y en f orc ea b l e. To d ete

rm i n e L ord & Es sex ’s

pote n ti al l i ab i l i ty under the sh

eet, we not o nl

y n eed to know whether it i s an i ndepen dent, bi ndi ng contract, but we
ne ed t o elu cid at e w ha t t he t er ms o f t ha t co nt r ac t ar e. Sp ec ifica lly, w e mu st de t er mine w he t he rit1-06-1233

-22-

est ablishes any pr imary payment obligat ion o n t he pa rt of Lo rd & Es sex. Mid we st co nt en ds t ha t t he t er ms o f t he cr ed it info r mat io n sh ee t “no t o nly o bvio us ly require def

endan t t o pay f or any goods sold on credi t but also specify

that plai ntif f m ay recover at t o rne y’s fee s a nd 1 1 /2 % mo nt hly int er es t o n o ve r du e b ala nc es . ” B ut in fa ct , it is no t at all obvious from the f

ace of the contract that it creates any duty on the part of Lord & Essex to pay f or g oods . Th

e m ost n atu ra l re ad i n g of th e text i s th

at if Lor d & Es sex owe s m on ey to M i dw est, and if Midwe st pur sue s co llectio n by suit, t hen it c an co llect a t t or ney fees a nd int er est – but in and of i tself , it does not establish that Lord & Essex actuall y owes an y m oney to Mi dwest for goods deliv ered. Indeed, Mi

dwest in advertently

allude s to t hi s i

n i ts brie f, wh

ere it draws an

anal ogy between the credit inf

ormation sheet and a credit card contr act: “t he user is b ound t o pay in terest at a ce rt ain rat e, and incu rs c er t ain pena lties fo r no n-p ayment r ega rd less o f what go od s ar e being pur chas ed. ” Cr edit car ds d o no t est ablish any primary pa yment o bligat ion o n t he pa rt of t he holde r. One cann

ot look to a credi

t card agreemen

t t o determin

e whether or not go ods have b een purch ase d; on e ca n on l y determ i ne such m atters b y l ookin g to sub seq

uen t contracts

of s ale. To take the analogy a step f

urther, in the a

bsen ce of automatic

fee provisi ons, there can b e no breach of a credi t card contr act unl ess the card owner h as entered i

nto o ther contract s to buy goods b as ed up on th at cre di

t. The trial court im pli ci tly found that the credi

t inf ormation sh

eet contained a duty

to pay for any go od s de livered which wa s indep ende nt of a ny obligat ion incur re d und er t he
su b con tra ctor ag re em en ts;f or i n sta n ce , the r ul i n g s pe ak s of “ am oun ts d ue an d owi n g p ur suan

t to1-06-1233

-23-

t he cr ed it ag r ee men t . ” H o we ve r , t he co ur t ne ve rst at es wh er e in t he wo r din g o f t he cr ed it informat ion she et it finds su ch an o bligat ion. Su ch a r ead ing is not gr ou nded in the t ext in any
wa y ; a s d i scus se d a bov e, th e gran ti ng of cre di t i s a n e nti rel y se pa rate matte r f rom the i m pos i ti on of a pri ma ry obl iga tion to pay f

or go ods sold. We f in d that even i

f L ord & Essex can

not clai m, b ecause of the a

bsen ce of the cl

arity that th e m i ss i n g e x h i b i ts c oul d h av e af f ord ed us , that th

e cre di t i n f orm ati on sh eet l acksth e r eq

ui si te sp ec i f i ci ty to be a b i nd i ng con tract of an y sor t, th e she et c an

not b e a n i nd ep en de nt b as i s f

or contractual li

abi li ty. It pro vi

des onl y, at best, t hat its terms

are relev ant should Lord & Essex be com e i nd ebted thr ough som e other c ontr

ac t. Lor d & Ess ex the n woul d b ec ome l

i ab l e f or co llec t io n c o st s, inc lud ing at t o rne y fee s, int er es t , an d c o ur t co st s. Ho we ve r , t he r e is no t hing in the cre di t i nf orm ati on s he et to e sta

bl i sh an y pre ex i sti ng i nd ebted ne ss f or an y materi al de l i ve red or services provided by Midwest. Thus, t he credit in formation sheet at best wo uld onl y f unction as a
sou rc e of con ti n gen t l i ab i l i ty sh oul d m on ey b e ow ed un der a n oth er con tra ct. C. In terac ti on Betwe en th e Cre di t Inf orm ati on Sheet an d th e S ub con tra ctor A gr eemen

ts Lo r d & E ss ex ur ge s, ho we ve r , t ha t ev en if t he cr ed it info r mat io n sh ee t we r e a leg ally bind ing ag r ee men t , wh et he ras a le ga lly inde pe nd en t ba sis fo rliabilit y o ras a c o nt ing en t o ne , it
wou l d b e supe

rs ed ed by the su bc ontr ac tor ag ree men ts. It con ten dstha t the su bc ontr ac tor agreements are ful

ly in tegr ated, so t hey

override all

previous negotiations between the part ies, in cl udin g every thin g contain ed i n the credi

t inf ormation sh

eet. Midwest, on the other hand, takes t he po sitio n t hat t he t er ms of t he cr edit informat ion she et ar e o ut side t he sc op e o f the1-06-1233

3 Note t hat si

nce the sub contracto r agreemen ts are contract s f

or t he sal e of goods (cabi nets and appl

ia nces), they

are governed b

y Il li nois ’ versi

on of the Uni

form Comm ercia l C ode (810 ILCS 5/2-101 et seq . (We st 2006 )). See 8 10 IL CS 5/2 -102 (W est 200 6). -24- subc ont ra ct or agr eement s and t hus a re not subjec t t o int egr at ion. 3 A con tract i s i nte gra ted when the pa rti esi nte nd i t to be a f i na l an d c om pleteex pre ss i on of the a greem en t betwe en them
. Koester v. We

ber, Cohn &

Riley, Inc ., 193 Ill . App. 3d 1045, 104 8, 5 50 N .E.2 d 10 04, 100 6 (1 989 ). W he the r an agree men t i s f ul l y i nte gra ted i s a que sti on of l aw , to th e exten t th at th e a gr eemen t i s u n am b i gu ous , s o we

con si der i t de novo
. Air Safety, Inc. v. Teachers Realty Corp. , 18 5 Ill. 2d 457 , 46 2, 7 06 N .E .2d 882 , 88 4 (1 999 ); Geoquest Productions, Ltd. v. Embassy Home Entertainment , 229 Ill . App. 3d 41, 45, 593 N.E. 2d 727, 730 (1992), citin

g Pecora v. Szabo , 94 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 57 , 418 N .E.2d 431 (1981 ). The effect of int egr at ion is t o “p re clude [] evidenc e o f unde rst andings , no t re flect ed in a writi ng, reached b efore or at t he tim e of i ts execution wh

ic h would v ary or m odif y i ts terms.” J& B Steel Contractors, Inc. v. C. Iber & Sons, Inc ., 162 Ill . 2d 265, 269, 642 N.E .2d 1215, 1217 (1994 ). Eve

n the i ntroduction

of a ddi tion al cons i sten t terms i s b arred
. J&

B Steel , 162 Ill . 2d at 273, 642 N.E.2d at 1219 ; Eichengreen v. Rollins , 325 Ill . App. 3d 517, 523-24, 757 N.E .2d 952, 958 (2001). As the Ill

in ois Suprem

e Court has sai d, “parol ev ide nce can not be adm

itted to add
an oth er ter m to th e a gr eemen t al th oug h th e w ri ti n g c on tai n s n othi n g on th e p ar ti cul ar ter m to whi ch the parol e

vi dence is di

rected.” Armstrong Paint & Varnish Wor

ks v. Continental Can Co. , 301 Ill . 102, 106, 133 N.E . 711, 713 (1921); see al so R. Lord, Wil li ston on Contract s §33.23 (4th ed. 1999). This i s someti me s refe rred to as the “f

our co rners” rule: when

in terpret in g an1-06-1233

-25-

i nte gra ted con tract, cou rts a re l i m i ted to con si de ri ng materi al tha t l i eswi thi n th e f our c orners

of the tex t, rather th

an resorti ng to ex trin sic ev i den ce. Air Safety , 185 Ill . 2d at 462, 706 N. E.2d at 88 4. He nc e, t o t he ex t en t t ha t t he su bc o nt r ac t o rag r ee men t s a r e in t eg r at ed , t he ir t er ms w ill
o ve rr ide an y o t he rpr io ro rco nt emp o r an eo us ne go t iat io ns b et we en t he pa r t ies r ela t ing t o t he ir
su b j ec t m atte r, i n cl udi n g a n y ter m s th at m i gh t b e c on tai n ed i n th e cre di t i n f orm ati on sh eet. In the case at ha

nd, each subcontractor agreement contains an i ntegration clause that pur po rt s t o s upe rse de “a ll previo us u nder st andings , r epr ese nt at ions a nd ag re ement s bet wee n t he par t ies re lating t o t he su bject matt er of t his Agre ement .” This clau se is st ro ng evide nce o f the par t ies’ inte nt , no t only t o be bou nd by t he ag re ement , bu t t o ha ve it o ver ride co nfli ct ing pr ovisio ns t hat may have bee n co nt ained in pr eviou s o r c ont empo ra neo us d ealings be t wee n t he pa rti es . W he n s uc h a cl au se i s p res en t, Il l i noi s c ourts wi l l ac ce pt i t at f ac e val ueasan ex pre ss i on of the parties’ wil

l that the wri

tt en contract be the f

in al deal . See Air Safety , 185 Ill . 2d at 464- 66, 706 N.E.2d at 885-86 ( ho ldin g t ha t t he fo ur co rne r s r ule pr o hibit ed co nsid er at io n o f ex t r insic
evi den ce wh en i nterpreti ng a contrac t wi th a sweep i

ng i nteg rati on cl aus e). Ho weve r, even if a co nt ra ct is integ ra t ed, t he sc op e o f integ ra t ion d oe s no t ext end in fi ni tely to any and al l de alin gs that mi ght have occurred between the parties . Evide nce of a n ext rinsic ag re ement may be admissible if i t is “so fa r a sep ar at e and dist inct mat t er as t o be capabl e of exi stence as an

in dependen t legal act.” R. Lord, Wi

ll is to n on Contracts §33.23 at 678 (4th ed. 1999); see Row

e v. Allely , 24 4 N eb . 48 4, 5 07 N .W .2d 293 (19 93)(hol di

ng tha t the pa rol evi dence rul e di d not aff

ect a prior agreemen

t t hat was separate and di stin ct from the contract under consi

deration). Under the UCC, the test to be appl ie d is whether the terms

of the al le ged1-06-1233

-26-

pa rol agree men t “ wou l d c erta

i nl y ha ve be en i nc l ude d i n th e docu men t”; i f so, th en ev i de nc e of
such an ag re em en t i s i n ad m i ss i b l e. 81 0 I LC S A

n n . 5/ 2- 20 2, C om

men t 3 ( W est 20 06 ). I f

n ot, the n th e p arol agree men t may be con si de red by the tri er of f ac t asl ong

asi ts terms a re n ot i n con siste n t wi th th e te rm s of th e p ri mar y ag re em en t. Lord & Esse x c onten ds that under Air Safety , 185 Il l . 2d at 46 4-66, 706 N.E.2d at 885- 86, t he inte gr at ion clau se in t he su bco nt ra ct or agr eement s pr eclud es u s fro m cons ider ing t he credit i nf ormation sh

eet at all in determi ni ng the parties ’ obl

iga tions. Mi dwest, on the ot her han

d,
co nt en ds t ha t t he cr ed it info r mat io n sh ee t is a n ind ep en de nt co nt r ac t wh o se t er ms a r e e nt ire ly out si de the subj ect matter of the subcontractor agr eem ents, so it i s i

ndepen dently enf orceabl e, r eg ar dle ss o f wh et he rt he su bc o nt r ac t o rag r ee men t s a r e in t eg r at ed
. T he t r ial c o ur t rule d in Mi dwest’s f

avor on this

is sue, say

in g that t he credi

t inf ormation sh

eet “i s a separate and distin ct contr act o utside of any

in tegr ation clause of the various co ntract s, subcontr acts submi tt ed”; as a resul t, it found that the credit i nf ormation sh

eet was adm

is si ble i n i ts entirety . Yet as discus sed abo ve, we a re not bou nd by t his det er minatio n, since we r eview t he issue of int egr at ion de novo
. To det er mine the s co pe o f integ ra t ion o f the subc ont ra ct or agr eement s, w e must next de term i ne the i nte nd ed su bj ec t matte r of

the con tracts. Mi dw es t ad

voc ate s a n e xtrem el y na rrow vie w o f t he ir s ub

jec t mat t er , go ing t o so me le ng t h in it s br ief t o pa int t he m as fo cu se d e xc lus ive ly on the spe ci f i cations of

the products to b e del

i vered. Howe

ver, we th

i nk i t cl ear that the pri

mary pa y men t obl i ga ti ons of Lord & Ess ex are also a centr al com ponen t of the su bc ontr ac tor agr eement s, s ince t his payment is the co nsider at ion fo r w hich Midwe st agr eed t o d eliver t he go od s in que st ion. Bec aus e su ch du t ies ar e wit hin the he ar t of t he su bject matt er of t he1-06-1233

-27-

su bc ontr ac tor ag ree men ts, p urs ua nt to th e i nte gra ti on c l au se , th e terms of

the su bc ontr ac tor agreem ents would h

ave preem

pted and superseded an

y a nd al l s uch dutie s regardin

g pay me nt that
m i gh t h av e b een i n cu rre d u n der the cre di

t i n f orm ati on sh eet. Wi th respect to specifi

c reme die s, the si

tuation is more compl

ex. Mi dwest urges that b ec au se re med i es f or b re ach b y Lor d & Es sex ar e n ot m en ti on ed i n th e s ub con tra ctor ag re em en ts at al l , th ey

are not p art of

i ts s ub j ec t matte r. Th

usthe cre di t i nf orm ati on s he et’ s p rovi si

ons f or i nte res t an d a ttorn ey f ee s r em ai n s ep ara te a nd di sti nc t f rom the l ater con tracts a nd are not subs umed by t hem. Lo rd & Es sex na t ur ally take s a muc h bro ade r view of t he sc op e o f the subc ont ra ct or agr eement s, a rg uing in its r eply brief t hat t he ag re ement s ext end t o “a ny con tractua l l eg al obl i ga ti on b etw een th

e p arti es .” In p arti

cul ar, i t con ten dstha t the om i ss i on of specifi c reme die s f

or breach was i

ntentiona l. Tha t is, i nstead of rem

edi es bei ng a rem ot e subj ect t hat lies beyond t he sc op e o f the subc ont ra ct or agr eement s, t hey wer e co nt emplat ed by t he pa rties , w h o pu rp ose f ul l y ch ose n ot to i n cl ud e th em i n th e c on tra ct. Wh i l e the l anguag e of

the c ontract i

tself i s am bi guous a nd b oth i nterpretati ons a

re pl au si b l e, we b el i ev e th at M i dw est h as

made th e s up eri or a rgum en t h ere. In su pp ort of i ts conten tion that rem edi es a re par t of the sub j ect m atter of th e con tracts, L ord & Es sex

off ers nothin g but a bare presum

ption of i ntentiona li ty, wi thout supporting ev

ide nce b esides the f

act that both pa rti esare sop hi sti ca ted com merc i al en ti ti es . There

i s n o tex t i n th e sub con tractor agreem ents that deals

with om is si on of rem

edi es or purpor ts to cl ash or overla p with the rem

edi es pr ov i de d u

n der the cre di

t i n f orm ati on sh eet. N or i s th

ere r el ev an t testi mon y th at woul

d ten d to show that the documents were draf ted deli berately to avoi d me

ntion of them. Hen

ce, we fi nd that1-06-1233

-28-

t he su bco nt ra ct or agr eement s do not ext end t o t he issue of r emedies . S ee 8 10 I LCS Ann. 5/ 2- 202 , C omment 3 ( West 200 6) ; R. Lo rd , Willist on o n Co nt ra ct s §3 3. 23 ( 4t h ed. 199 9) . T he pr ovisio ns in the cr edit informat ion she et for inter est , c ou rt co st s, a nd at t or ney fees in t he eve nt that Midwest pursues collection b y s uit are not subsum

ed by the subcontractor agreements, but are enforceable as consistent t erms of an i ndependent agreement under Sect ion 2-202 (810 I LCS 5/2-20 2 (West 200 6)). D. Ob l i ga

ti on s U n der the S ub con

tra ctor A gr eemen

ts Sin ce any prim ary pay me nt obli gation m ust come f

rom the sub contracto r agreemen ts, we now turn to consi der them . Lord &

Esse x ra i ses two potenti al

obstac l es to Mi

dwest’s re cove

ry unde r t he su bco nt ra ct or agr eement s: o ne pr oc edu ra l, t he t ime li mitat ion o n lawsu its, and o ne su bst an t ive , t he r eq uir ed pu r ch as e o r de rdo cu men t sys t em. Lord & Esse x f i rst con tend s tha t the 10- month l

i m i t on sui ts aga i nst Lord & Es sex

ba rs any rec ove ry by Midwes t unde r t he su bco nt ra ct or agr eement s. T his claim raises a n inter pr et ive is sue: Because

the cl ock only

starts t ic kin g when work is “ compl

eted” under the agreem

ents, we
m us t de ci de wh at i t mea n s f or w ork to b e c om

pl ete d, a n d th en de ci de wh en th at ti me c am e to pass (i f at al

l). Questions of pure contractual construction such as thi s one are m

atter s of l aw, an d a s a r es ult , we r ev iew t he m de novo
. People ex rel. Departme nt of Public Health v. Wiley , 218 Ill. 2d 2 07, 223 , 84 3 N. E. 2d 2 59, 268 (20 06) ; American States Insurance C o. v. Koloms , 177 Il l . 2d 473 , 479-8 0, 687 N .E.2d 72, 7 5 (199 7). Lo rd & Es sex t ake s t he po sitio n t hat Midwe st ’s final pro duc t deliver y, which Lo macz a nd Sm i th b oth testif

i ed wa s i n N ovem ber or Dece

m ber of 2 001, m

arks the date of

com pl eti on.1-06-1233

4 Later, on direct exam

in ation by hi s own counsel , Smi

th att em pted to expl

ai n that he h

ad been referri ng excl usi vel y to warranty work. -29- Under thi s i

nterpretat ion, Mi

dwest’s clai

m i s unti me ly , sin ce the compl

ai nt was f il ed over a y

ear la ter. On the ot her han

d, Midwe st contends that wor k is not yet compl

ete. First, it say

s that
wo rk can o nly be cons ider ed c omp lete onc e all war ra nt y wor k has been p er for med und er t he contract; t hus, the cl

ock would not start runni ng unti l the s horter o f 18 m

onths from

product insta llatio n or 12 mo nt hs fro m the d at e o f closing. The re was ample evide nce a t t rial sug ges t ing that Midwest’s warranty work has not yet been

fi ni shed. However, Mi

dwest acknowle dges that the l atter si x c ontracts

contai n a claus e stati

ng th at com pl eti on i s n

ot to l l ed b

y warra nty work. We find t hat t his clause is unambiguo us a nd wo rk s t o fo re clos e Midw est ’s wa rr ant y arg ument with respect t o t hose cont racts. Second, Midwest argues that wor k is not comple

te until all products have been

deliv ered pur sua nt t o t he co nt ra ct . Fu rt her mor e, it co nt ends t hat Lo rd & Es sex ha s t he bur den o f pro ving compl etion be cause i

t is rai si ng the 10-m

onth li mi tation on sui

t as an af fi rmati ve def ense. In tha

t respect, it contends that Lord & Essex f ai le d to present evi

dence at trial

suf fi ci ent to show t hat th i s is th e c as e. In oth er words , e v en

i f we wereto ac ce

pt arguendo tha

t Mi dw es t ha s n

ot deliv ered any product s si

nce Novem

ber or Decem

ber of 2001, Lord & Essex never demons

trat ed that Midwest deli

vered al l the products that it was contractuall y requi red to . Indeed, there was
so me evidenc e t o t he co nt ra ry: o n dire ct examinat ion as a ho st ile witnes s, S mith said t hat he bel ie ved there were j obs that Midwe st had not yet compl eted, as well

as probl em s wi

th shortages that had not yet been

resolved. 41-06-1233

-30-

The c on tra cts th em se l v es make n o atte m pt to a f f i rm ati v el y de f i n e “ com pl eti on ,” an d on i ts face t he t er m is ambi

guo us, as sho wn by the co mpet ing inte rp re t at ions t hat have be en o ffered by t he pa rt ies. I n det er mini

ng t he co rr ect inter pr et at ion, we a re mindful of var iou s ca ses c ited by Midwe st st at ing t hat co nt ra ct ual limi t at ions o n suit ar e disfavo re d by co ur t s, s o w her e t her e is any
am bi gui ty, th ey are to be construed s trictly

agai nst the draf

ter. Michigan Avenue National Bank of Chicago v. Evans, Inc. , 176 Ill . App. 3d 1047, 1059, 531 N.E. 2d 872, 880 ( 198 8); Custom Line Builders Corp. v. Kansas City F ire & Marine Co. , 413 F . Supp. 8 77, 878 (N.D. Il l . 1976)
. Thi s i s consi stent with Il

li nois publ ic policy preferri ng to decide cas es on the m erits rather than dis mi ssi ng them on purely procedural grounds. See Smith v. City of Chicago , 299 Ill . App. 3d 1048, 1054, 702 N.E. 2d 274, 279 (1998) (st ating tha t “contro versi

es sh ould be determi ned accordin g to the substan

tive ri ghts of the parties ”). Lord & Essex correctly points out that
con tractua l ti me l i m i ts on br i ngi ng sui t ag ai ns t a p arty are not a utom ati cal l y i nv al i d a s a matte r of la w, and whe

n they are cl ear on their f

ace, they ma y b e strictl

y e nf orced. See Taylor v. Western & Southern Life Insurance Co. , 96 6 F .2d 118 8, 1 203 (7th

Ci r. 1 992 ). Y et th

i s c onte nti on i s n ot incons iste nt wit h Midwe st ’s ar gument , w hich co ncer ns inte rp re t at ion o f the pr ovisio n in the
co nt ra ct t hat t rigg er s t he t ime at w hich the lim itat ions p er iod begins t o r un. Assuming fo r t he sake of argum

ent that the contract ual

li mi tation on sui

t is en forceabl e as a m atter of law, as noted ab ove , we

are non ethel es s m i nd f ul tha t i ts s cop e i s to b e s tri ctl

y con stru ed to f ac i l i tatea d ec i si

on on the merits rather t han on purely pro cedural grounds. Un de r thi s stan

da rd, weare pe rs ua de d that M i dw es t ha s th e m ore p l au si bl e i nte rpreta ti on of wh at i t mea n s f or w ork to b e “ com

pl ete d.” On l y wh en a p ar ty h as en ti re l y f ul f i l l ed i ts1-06-1233

5 Sin ce we fi nd that Lord & Essex is estopped from cl ai mi ng that the 10-month peri od has
ex pi re d, we n ee d n ot de al w it h c o nt en t io ns b y Mid we st t ha t t he 10
- mo nt h p er io d is un en fo r ce ab le
as a m atter of law due to bein

g in contravention of

publ ic policy and the Mec

han ic s Lien A

ct (770 ILCS 60/1 et se

q. (We st 2006 )). -31- contrac tual duti es d oes i t ma ke s en se to sa

y that the party ’swork un

der the con

tract i s com

pl ete. To st ate the converse, i

t is qui te possibl e for a party to cease perf ormance whi le its contractual dut ies ar e st ill

incomplet e. Su ppo se, for insta nce, t hat Midwe st had o nly delivered ha lf the
ca bine t s t ha t it wa s r eq uir ed t o un de rt he su bc o nt r ac t o rag r ee men t s a nd t he n a br up t ly ce as ed all deliver y. It wo uld be a bsur d t o d eclar e t hat t he mos t re cent dat e o f pro duc t deliver y marked t he t ime of co mplet ion. This int er pr et at ion lead s us t o c onc lude t hat Midwe st ’s su it is no t t ime-bar re d. Due t o t he confl ictin g test im ony presented at t rial

on the issue of completion, it wo uld not have been agains t th e m an i f est we i gh t of th e ev i den ce

f or th e c our t b el ow to h av e f oun d th at th e 1 0- mon th li mi tation on sui

t had not yet been

triggered. The trial

court did n

ot ma ke such a f

in din g, but we
may af f i rm i ts dec i sion on a

ny grounds s

upported b

y the re cord. In re Estate of Funk , 221 Ill . 2d 30, 96, 849 N.E. 2d 366, 403 (2006). In addition, one of Lord & Essex’ s key

defen ses on appeal i s th at Mi dw est f

ai l ed to co m pl y wi th th e te rm s of th e s ub con tra ctor ag re em en ts b y f ai l i n g to subm it si gned purchase order system documen ts. This cl

ai me d breach

of contract, if true, is

an im pedim ent to completion j ust as surely as un deli vered cabi

nets wou ld b e. Therefore, regardless of pro duct deliv

ery date s, we find that Lor d & Essex is esto pped fro m cl aim ing that Midwest ’s work un der those ag

reem en ts i s “ com pl eted.” 51-06-1233

-32-

Furtherm ore, we not e that even i

f we we re to accept the defi

ni tion of “ compl

etion” gi ven by Lord & Essex, we would stil l f in d that t he 10-m

onth li mi tation on sui

t had not been triggered, due to the mi ssin

g tr ial exhi bi ts. We do not k now whether t here is i nf ormation in those do cu men t s t ha t wo uld ha ve a ma t er ial imp ac t o n t he iss ue o f co mple t io n; fo rinst an ce , it is pl au si bl e that the c om

m un i ca ti ons be twe en Cu si man o an d Sm i th c oul d i nc l ude di scus si ons of i nc om plete j obs , or that the acc oun

ti ng doc um en ts i ntr oduc ed by the pa rti escon tai n e vi de nc e of undeliv ered g oo ds. He nce, we must const rue t his gap in the r eco rd t o favor the t rial court ’s ruli ng – i.e. , that M i dw est’s

su i t i s n ot ti me- b ar re d – ev en th oug h th e tr i al cou rt di d n ot b as e i ts fi ndi ng on the terms

of the sub contracto r agreemen ts. See Tekansky v. Pearson , 263 Ill . App. 3d 759, 764, 635 N.E. 2d 605, 609 (1994) (any doubts rai sed by mi ssi ng ev ide nce are to be resolv

ed against the appe ll

ant ); In re Estate of Funk , 221 Ill . 2d 30, 96, 849 N.E .2d 366, 403 (2006) (t rial court dec i sion m

ay be af f i rmed on an y grounds). Lord & Essex’ s subs

tantive argumen t is m ore complex . Pursuant to the purchase order documen t system, Lord & Essex cl ai ms the righ t t o withhol

d pay me nt unless Mi

dwest has subm itted si gned purchase orders and contracto r’s j ob release notices for the j obs i

t has compl eted. In order t o pro perly anal yz e this cl ai m, we m ust fi rst consider Mi

dwest’s duties

under the pure text of the agreemen ts, and then di scuss the way in whi ch those duties

ma y h ave b een m odi f i ed b y the c ourse of

perf orma nc e. In rul i ng u pon th i s arg um en t by Lord & Esse x, w e are not boun d by the re ason

i ng gi ven b y the tri al court, an d we m ay af f i rm on an y grounds that are j ustif i ed b y the re cord. In re Estate of Funk , 221 Il l . 2d 30, 9 6, 849 N .E.2d 366 , 403 (2 006), ci ting Material Service Corp. v. Departme nt of Revenue , 98 Il

l . 2d 382 , 457 N .E.2d 9 (1 983).1-06-1233

-33-

We beg in by exami

ning t he t ext itse lf. Midwe st clear ly has a du t y to co mply with t he pu r ch as e o r de rdo cu men t sys t em a s d es cr ibe d i n t he co nt r ac t s. T he sys t em is laid o ut ex pl icit ly, and there can

be n o doubt that it appli

es to all purchases

ma de by Lord & Essex. The c

rucial question here is what eff

ect Midwest’s all

eged noncompli

ance has on Lord & Essex’s obli gations. Lord & Esse x is as serti

ng f ail ure of an ex pres s con di tion as a ba r to Mi dwest’s re cove

ry . I t ar gu es t ha t Lo r d & E ss ex ha s fu lly pe r fo r med un de rt he su bc o nt r ac t o rag r ee men t s, ev en if it ha s no t pa id fo rall g o o ds t ha t we r e d elive r ed , be ca us e t he sc o pe o f it s o blig at io n t o pa y is s t r ict ly li mi ted by Mi dwest’s co mpl

ian ce with the purchase ord er system. Even i n the fi rst t wo co ntract s, the su bm i ss i on of prop erl y si gned pur ch as e ord er s y stem doc um en ts is f ram ed asa c ond

i ti on of pa y men t, not m er el y as a r eq ui re d e l em en t of perf orm an ce ; th e l an guag e is stri

ct a n d i s s ub j ec t to no ot her reasonab le

in terpret ation. Furtherm

ore, t he l ast six contracts expli

ci tly say that f ul f i l l men t of pu rc h as e order re qui

re men ts i s a n ex pr es s c on di

ti on pr ec eden t to pa y men t. Wh en contracts contain e

xpress condi

tions preceden

t, st rict compl

ia nce wi th such cond i tions i s req

ui red. Regency Commercial Assoc iates, LLC v. Lopax, Inc. , 373 Ill . App. 3d 270, 321, 869 N.E. 2d 310, 321 (2007). A conditi on precedent i s def in ed as a condi

tion i n wh ic h perf orma nc e by one p arty i s req ui red b ef ore the other par

ty i s obl i gated to perf

orm. Regency Commercial Associates

, LLC v. Lopax, Inc. , 3 73 I ll. App. 3d a t 282 , 8 69 N .E .2 d at 321 -2 2. The pur ch as e ord er d ocu men t sy stem f i ts th i s des cri ption: the l an gua geof the su bc ontr ac tor agreem ents provi des that Lord & Essex h as no duty to pay Midwe st unl ess an d until signed pur chas e o rd er do cument s have been d elivered acc or ding t o t he pr oc edu re s laid o ut in the
con tra ct. Cou

rtswi l l en f orc e ex pr es s c on di

ti on s pre ce den

t de sp i te th e p oten ti al f or h ar sh re su l ts1-06-1233

-34-

f or th e n onc om pl y i ng pa rty : “ It i s w el

l es tab l i sh ed tha t where a c ontr ac t con tai ns a c ond i ti on precedent, the contract do es not become e nf orceabl e or eff

ective until

the condi tion i s perform

ed or t he conti

ngen cy occurs.” Dodson v. Nink , 72 Il l . Ap p. 3d 59 , 64, 390

N.E.2d 5 46, 549(1979 ). Thi s i s particul

arly true in the case at hand, wh ic h i nvol ves transac

tions b etween two sophisti cated
comm ercia l e ntiti es. Under the Dodson standard, Lord & Essex is correct in i ts contention that und er the text of the s ubc ontractor ag

reem en ts, i t has no duty to pay f or any goods wh

ere pu r ch as e o r de rdo cu men t s h av e n o t be en su bmit t ed by M idwe st . E vid en ce o f a ct ua l d eliv er y, such asthe i nv oi ce s a nd othe r ac cou nti ng doc um en ts th at M i dw es t pre sente d a

t tri al , i s n

ot suf fi ci ent to est abl

is h l ia bi li ty as l ong as the condi

tion rem ai ns unsatisf

ie d. Ho weve r, ou r a nalysis of t he su bco nt ra ct or agr eement s do es no t end o nce w e have determi ned the m eani ng of the contracts at the tim e they were signed. We

mus t next consider ho w t ho se o blig at io ns ma y hav e b ee n mo difie d b y t he co ur se o f pe r fo r man ce . Mid we st wo uld have us rul e that regardless of the obli gation to comply

with the purch

ase order document sy

stem as spel le d out in the text of the subcontractor agr eem ents i t sign ed, that o bl

iga tion has been modif ied or eli mi nated by the course o f Lord & Essex’s subs equent co nduct, o n three gro unds: (1 ) by re as on of Lor d & Es sex ’s ac ce pta n ce of th e g oods

un der the U CC , (2 ) by

re as on of i ts inter fere nce w ith Midw est ’s pe rfo rmance t hat re nder s t he co ndit ion p re ced ent unenfo rc eable, and (3) by reason of i

ts fai lure to deman

d compl ia nce wi th the purchase order system. On m ix ed que sti ons of l aw an d f ac t such asthe se , th e ru

l e i s th at w e d ef er to th e tri al cou rt on f i nd i ng s of f act, but und

ertake i nde pen den t ana l y si s of the l egal i ssues i nv olv ed. Orland Fire P

rotection District v. Intrastate Piping & Controls, Inc. , 266 Ill . App. 3d 744, 749, 637 N.E. 2d 641, 6451-06-1233

6 Co nver sely, whe n a se ller de livers go od s t o a buyer , a nd pa yment is bo t h due and demand ed, t he buyer do es no t have t he r ight t o k eep or dispo se o f the go od s unless he pa ys the sel l er. 810 ILCS 5/2-50 7(2) (W

est 200 6). -35- ( 1994)
. Fi rst, Midwest argues that by keepi ng an d la ter sell in g the goods t hat Midwest deli vered, Lord & Essex h

as accepted the goods and i s oblige d under the Uni form Comm ercia l C ode to pay f or th em re ga rd l es s of wh eth er Mi dw est ad h ered str i ctl y to th e te rm s of th e c on tra ct. T he UC C p r o vid es t ha t o nc e a bu yer ac ce pt s g o o ds , it is bo un d t o pa y t he co nt r ac t ua lly agree d-u pon pri cef or th em . 81 0 IL CS 5/2 -60 7(1 ) (W es t 200 6). A cc ep tan

ce , by i tse l f , doe s n ot affect t he buyer ’s po wer t o lat er sue for damag es c aus ed by br eac h; ho weve r, it d oe s pr event t he buyer fro m later re

ject ing t he go od s base d o n co nt ra ct ual sho rt co mings tha t it k new a bou t at t he tim e of acc eptan ce, un l ess i t reason ab l y be l i ev ed those s hortcom

i ngs would be sea sona bl y cured
. 810 ILCS 5/2-607(2) (West 2006). Hence, if Lord & Essex is f

ound to have accepted the goods despi te knowin g that Midwest did not provide the requi red paperwork, t hen

it i s obliga

ted to pay Mi dwest regardless

of Mi dwest’s f ai lure to ful

fi ll the requirem

ents of the purch

ase order docum en t system to the l etter. A buyer is d eemed t o ha ve ac cep t ed g oo ds w hen t he buyer co mmi t s “any act incons iste nt wi th the sel l er’s owne rsh i p.” 6 810 ILC S 5 /2 -6 06( c) (Wes t 200 6) . T his rule ho lds t ru e eve n if the bu yer ve r ba lly pu r po r t s t o r eje ct t he go o ds in q ue st io n, as se en in Fred W. Wolf Co. v. Monarch Refrigerating Co. , 252 Ill . 491, 96 N.E. 1063 (1911). In that case, defenda nt purchased a
re friger at ing plant fro m plaintiff. Afte r inst allatio n, d efenda nt wr ot e t he plaint iff a let t er st at ing1-06-1233

-36-

th at th e p l an t wa s u n sa ti sf ac tory an d th at i t re f us ed to ac ce pt i t; h owev er , de f

en da n t con ti n ue d to use the m achi nery in its b usi ness . The Ill

in ois Suprem

e Court found that t hi s action cons tituted
wai v er of th e def en da n t’s ri gh t to re j ec t th e g oods : “Ev en

th oug h th e a pp el l an t h ad de ter m i n ed to
r eje ct t he pla nt * * * it co uld no t r et ain po ss es sio n o f t he pr o pe r t y and us e it fo rit s o wn pr o fit in its b usi ness and at the sam

e tim e i nsist upon the rejecti on.” Fred W. Wolf Co. v. Monarch Refrigerating Co. , 252 Ill . at 502, 96 N. E. at 1066- 67. Indeed, even if a purchaser h

as m ade a t imely r eje ct io n o f alle ge dly n o nc o nfo r ming go o ds , r es ale o f t he go o ds by t he pu r ch as er may s t ill be construed as

acc eptan ce. Fabrica de Tejidos Imperial, S.A. v. Brandon Apparel Group, Inc. , 218 F. S upp . 2d 974 , 97 8 (N .D. Ill. 200 2); S.A.M. Electronics, Inc. v. Osaraprasop , 39 F. Supp. 2d 107 4, 1085 (N.D. Il

l . 1999)
. These cas es lead us to t he concl usi on that Lord & Essex has accepted the goods deli

vered by Midwest. Although Lord & Essex may have pl anned to re

ject the goo ds supplied by Midwest
o n a cc o un t o f Mid we st ’s failu r e t o pr o vid e t he pa pe rwo r k r eq uir ed un de rt he co nt r ac t , it is
un di spute d th

at i t ke pt th ose good s. In

de ed , Sm i th testi f i ed th at m an y of th e h ous es wi th Mid we st ’s ca bine t s a nd ap plia nc es in t he m ha d a lre ad y bee n so ld t o bu yer s, wh ich is w ho lly in consi stent with Mi

dwest’s contin

ued ownershi

p. In addi

tion, there i s no i

ndication that Lord & E ss ex ex pe ct ed Mid we st t o cu r e t he lac k o f pu r ch as e o r de rdo cu men t s w it hin a se as o na ble t ime frame; Mid wes t co uld no t have d elivered t he do cument s wit hou t Lo rd & Es sex’s co op er at ion,
se ei ng asa L ord &

Ess ex si gnatu re wasreq

ui red . He nc e, L ord &

Ess ex ’s ve rb al i ns i stenc e u

pon co mpliance wit h t he pu rc hase or der do cument syst em will not abso lve it o f li ability upo n t he
con tra ct.1-06-1233

-37-

The situation is m

ore co mpl

ex wi th respect to six

of the eight subcontract or ag reements, wh i ch un l i kethe othe r two, al l con tai n a cl au se (4. a.i i .3) tha t rea dsasf ol l ows : “ the Con tractor shal l b e deem ed to ‘accept’ Subcontracto r’s perf ormance as conf ormi ng on ly if the Constru cti on Manager shal

l m ake an approp riate not ation, under a dat ed signature, o n the related Purchase Or der Syst em Do cument (s) ” ( emphas is in or iginal). T his definitio n of “ac cep t ance ” is binding upo n Midwe st , fo r t he UC C de fini t ion o nly applies in the abse nce o f an explicit agr eement bet wee n t he pa rt ies t o t he co nt ra ct : “T he effect of p ro visions o f this Act may be varied by agree men t, exc ept asotherwi

se provi ded i n th i s Act.” 810

ILCS 5/1-10 2(3) (W

est 200 6). If re ad wi th ri gi d l i teral i sm , the w ordi

n g of th e c on tra ctual de f i n i ti on m i gh t se em to indicat e t hat Lo rd & Es sex ha s no t acc ept ed t he go od s and hence do es no t have t o d eal wit h any of the con seq

uen ces of a cce ptance. Th

i s woul d certa i nl y be Lord & Esse x’ s pre f erred readi ng. However, a more reasonable i nterpr etat ion of the acceptance clause i s as follows: If Mi dwest do es no t obt ain signat ur es o n its p ur chas e o rd er syst em do cument s, L or d & E ssex d oe s no t have t o a cce pt any go od s de livered and may t hus r et ur n t hem witho ut having t o p ay. T her e is no t hing in the subcontractor agreements ab out Lord & Essex b ei ng en titled to retain an

d dis pose of goods that are deli

vered pursuan

t t o t he contract, without havi ng to pay f

or t hem . Smi

th’s undi sputed testi m on y at tr i al estab l i sh ed th at L ord & Es sex h as al re ad y sol d m an y of th e h ous es wi th Midwest’s goods

i n them, and tha

t whe n i t di d so, ti

tle to the goods passe d to the home owne rs. Si m pl y con di ti oni ng ac ce pta nc e of the goods upon de l i ve ry of the prop er p ap erwork d

oesnot
au t o mat ica lly mea n t ha t Lo r d & E ss ex may e xe r cis e t his s o r t o f do minio n o ve rt he go o ds as if they were gi f ts m ade b y Midwest. Thi s i s n

ot a reas onab l e as sum

pti on i n a com merci al contex t.1-06-1233

7 Altho ugh M idwes t do es no t st at e t his arg ument explicitly, it re pea t edly alludes t o t he actions that Lord & Essex al le gedl y took t o im

pede Midwest’s perf

ormance , both in

its trial argumen ts and i n i ts brie fs on appeal . Furthermore, the trial court to ok t hese ac

tions b y Lord & Ess ex into acc ou nt when r ende ring it s de cision. -38- T o be su r e, pa r t ies t o a c o nt r ac t co uld ce r t ain ly bar ga in fo rsu ch ha r sh t er ms, pa r t icu lar ly
co mmer cia lly so ph ist ica t ed pa r t ies like t he o ne s in t he ca se at ha nd
. Bu t wit ho ut mo r e e xp licit l an gu ag e to th

at e f f ec t, w e a ren ot wi l l i n g to read suc h

ter m s i n to th e a gr eemen t. We therefore co ncl

ude that the cont ractu al def in ition of “acceptance” do es not enco mpass situations such as this

one, invol

vi ng such compl

ete exercise of domi

nion over t he good s. That is, whi l e the def i ni tion rem ai ns bi ndi ng u pon the parti

es, i t is not app l i cab l e i

n the curr en t contex t. Rather, the UCC def

in ition of “ac ceptance” i s what controls, and un der that defi

ni tion, Lord & Essex has accepted t he good s. As a result, even under the fi nal six subcontract or ag reements, Mi dw est i s e n ti tl ed to b e p ai d acc ordi n g to th e te rm s of th e c on tra ct. Se con d, Mi dw est ar

gu es b y i m pl i ca ti on th at L ord

& Es sex mate rial l y i n terf ered wi th Midwest’s at tempt s to comply wi th t he purchase or der syste m, thus excusing Midwest’s
n on com pl i an ce wi th th e sy ste m as an ex pr es s c on di

ti on pr ec eden t to pa y men t. 7 To amelior at e t he st rict enfo rc ement of c ond itio ns pr ece dent , c ou rt s have deve lop ed t he f ol l owi ng doc tri ne : “ W he re th e p erf orm an ceof the con ti ng en cy or con di ti on i s wi thi n th e c ontr ol of a party to the agreemen t, t he party f

or whose benef

it the condi

tion preceden

t runs is required to use ‘reasonable

eff ort s’ to have i

t o ccur.” Dodson v. Nink , 72 Ill . App. 3d 59, 64, 390 N.E. 2d 546 , 54 9 (1 979 ); Smith v. Vernon , 6 I l l . A pp. 3d 4 34, 437 -38 , 28 6 N .E.2 d 99 , 10 2 (1 972 ). F or1-06-1233

-39-

insta nce, in Smith , 6 I l l . A pp . 3d 43 4, 2 86 N. E.2 d 9 9, p l ai n ti f f s c on tra cte d to pur ch

as e r ea l estate f rom d ef endan ts. The deal wasconti

nge nt upon pl ai ntif f s b ei ng a bl e to secu re a f i rst m ortgage. Plai ntif fs subse quently

recei ved a reasona

ble m ort gage off

er from a ban k, but they turned i

t do wn and did n ot secure any other o ff

ers. The co urt found that t hey fai led to t ake “reasonable ef forts” to ful f i l l the c ondi tion and acc ordi

ngl y en tered j udgm

en t in f av or of de f

endan ts. Smith , 6 Ill . App. 3d at 438, N.E .2d at 102. T his p r inc iple may be se en as an ex t en sio n o f t he implie d c o ve na nt o f go o d fa it h a nd fair dealing co nta ined in every cont rac t. 810 ILCS 5/1 -20 3 (Wes t 2 006 ); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Holtzman , 2 48 I ll. App. 3d 1 05, 112 , 6 18 N .E .2 d 41 8, 424 (1 993 ). This co venant pr ohibit s t he parties f rom exerci

si ng thei r contract ual

dis cretion “a

rbi traril y, capri ci ously , or in a m

ann er in consi stent with the reasona ble expectations

of the parties.” Resoluti on Trust , 248 Ill . App. 3d at 112 , 6 18 N .E .2 d at 424 . Whe n a co nt ra ct is co nt ingent upo n sat isfact ion o f a co ndit ion, and th e oth er pa rty h as di scre ti on ar

y pow er ov er th at c on di

ti on , i t i s i n most ci rc um sta n ce s q ui te reasonabl e to expect t hat party to t ake af fi rmati ve steps to see that t he condi tion i s satis fi

ed. In l igh t o f this prin

ci ple , it i s hi

ghl y probl em atic that Lord & Essex took actions that made i t dif f i cul t or n ea rl y i m pos si bl e f or M i dw es t to conf

orm to the term s of the su bc ontr ac tor agreem ents. The purpose of the purchas e order do cum ent system was

certainl y to ben efi t Lord & E ss ex , as Po pp t es t ified t ha t it wa s ne ce ss ar y t o pr ev en t su bc o nt r ac t o rfr au d. “Re as o na ble efforts” to ensure co mpl

iance with the system would re quire Lo rd & Esse x to facil itat e Midwest’s attem pts to get i

ts purcha se orde

r docum en ts si gne d asrequi

red un der the con

tracts. Furtherm ore, a reasonabl e subcontractor in Mi dwest’s posi

tion would h

ave ex pected that1-06-1233

-40-

Mid we st emp lo yee s w ho ca me t o de liver go o ds wo uld be ab le t o o bt ain sig na t ur es o n t he ir purchase order system docum ents i f the goods conform ed to co ntract specif

ic ations. In other words, it was an i

mpl ic it part of the system that Midwest would be able to obtain s ign

ed paperwo rk upo n tender of satisfactory goo ds. Unfortunat ely

, t hi s was not always the case. In fact, there is stro ng evi dence to suggest that Lord & Essex too k actions that seem designed to im

pede Midwest’s abi

li ty to pro cure signed purchase order documen

ts. The trial

court found that Lord & Essex frequen tly did n ot have an on-site represen

tative wh o could sign purchas e orders when Mi dwest’s em

ploy ees arri ved at jobs ites, be cause Sm

ith f ired the pers on in

charge of s ign

in g the orders. We defer to this f actual fi ndi ng, consi derin g that it was supported by testi moni al evi dence: Le e An

n Lom acz stated that wh en she de liver ed go o ds fo rMid we st , t he r e w as o ft en no Lo r d & E ss ex r ep r es en t at ive av aila ble t o s ign her pur chas e o rd er s; Midw est pr eside nt Lo macz a lso s po ke o f diffi cult y in gett ing pur ch as e ord er d ocu men ts s i gned ; a

nd Sm i th h i m se l f ad m i tted th at he f i red a f i el d supe rvi sor who se jo b it wa s t o sig n Mid we st ’s p ap er wo rk . T hus we se e t hat Lo rd & E ss ex, like t he p laint iffs in Smith , 6 Ill. App . 3 d at 437 -3 8, 286 N. E. 2d a t 102 , a ct ively to ok st eps t o p re vent t he ful fi ll me nt of a condi

tion preceden

t t o paym ent. We theref

ore fi nd that Lord & Essex h

as gi ven up its ab il ity to enf orce the pro vi si on as a condi tion preceden

t. Midwest’s f

ai lure to produce signed purchase o rder s and co ntra cto r’s job release not ices cannot funct ion as a bar t o Midwest ’s recovery wh

en Lord & Essex

eff ectivel y m ade i t im possib le for Midwest to produce such documents for each and every del iv ery that it made to t he j obsites. Fi nal ly , Midwe st contends that Lord & Essex can not assert t he purchase order1-06-1233

-41-

r eq uir eme nt as a b ar t o Mid we st ’s r ec o ve ry bec au se , in p r ac t ice , Lo r d & E ss ex did no t ac t ua lly requi re al l the s i gne d pap erwork f

rom Mi dwest as a c ondi

tion prece den t to paym en t. There are t wo ways t hat suc h co nduc t co uld p ot ent ially affect t he t er ms of t he co nt ra ct s: Fir st , it co uld be
us ed asa tool f or i nte rpreti ng the origi na l term s, a nd se con d, i t coul d ope

rate asa m ea ns of waiver . We co nsider t hese po ssibili t ies in tu rn. Und er t he U CC , c o ndu ct du ring t he c o ur se o f pe rfo rma nce ca n aid in int er pr et at io n o f a wri tten con tract by sh eddi ng l i gh t on th e u nd ers tan di ng be twe en the pa rti es . Se cti

on 2 -20 8(1 ) of t he UC C pr ovid es: “Where t he co nt ra ct for sale invo lves re pea t ed o cca sions for per for mance by eit he rpa r t y wit h k no wle dg e o f t he na t ur e o f t he pe r fo r man ce an d o pp o r t un it y fo ro bje ct io n t o it by the o t her , a ny cou rse of p er for mance a cce pt ed o r a cqu iesced in witho ut objec t ion sha ll be relev an t to determi

ne the m ean i ng of the a greem en t.” 810 IL CS 5/2 -208(1 ) (We st 2006 ). Ho weve r, if the e xpr ess t er ms of t he co nt ra ct and t he co ur se o f per for mance c anno t be
recon cil ed, ex pres s term

s wi l l trum p cours e of

perf orma nc e. 810ILCS 5/2-20 8(2) (W est 200 6). That is, “ a c our se

of de al i n g b etw een

th e p ar ti es i s a dm i ss i b l e ‘ to ex pl ai n , s uppl em en t, or a dd to the agreem

ent (but not co ntradict i

t).’ ” Scott v. Assurance Co. of America , 253 Ill . App. 3d 813, 818, 625 N.E.2d 439, 443 (1993), quo ting J . Whi te & R. Summ

ers, Uniform

Comm ercia l C ode §2-10, at 85 ( 2d ed. 1980). Hence, even if the course of perform

ance b etween the parties indicat ed t hat pur chas e o rd er s we re not always nec essa ry for payment (a dispu t ed fac t , a s shall be discu ssed below ), as a matt er of p ur e inte rp re t at ion, t hat wo uld no t affect t he clea r a nd
unam bi guou s m ea ni ng of the pur ch as e ord er req ui rem en t con tai ne d i n th e sub con tractor agreements.1-06-1233

-42-

T he an alys is d o es no t en d t he r e, be ca us e u nd er t he UC C, t he co ur se o f pe r fo r man ce is more than an i

nterpr etive too l; it may

also giv e rise to waiver of express contra ctual terms if those terms are n

ot strictly adhered to. Waiv

er is defi ned as the i

ntentiona l rel in quis hm ent of a known ri ght. Wagner Excello Foods , Inc. v. Fearn International, Inc. , 235 Ill . App. 3d 224, 232, 601 N. E.2 d 9 56 , 96 1 ( 19 92 ). In con tra ct l aw , i f a p ar ty i n di ca tes b y i ts c on du ct th

at c om pl i an ce wi th a parti cul ar prov i sion i s n ot requi red, then wai ver of th at provision m

ay be i m pli ed. Wagner Excello Foods, Inc. v. Fearn International, Inc. , 235 Ill . App. 3d at 232, 601 N.E .2d at 961; Custom Line Builders Corp., Inc. v. Kansas City F ire & Marine Co. , 413 F.Supp. 877, 878 (N.D. Ill . 1976). Ho wever, courts wil l n ot im ply wai ver f rom conduct unless there has been reli ance b y the ot her si de or waive

r is “ cl early in ferab le from the ci rcumstances.” Centr

al Illinois Public Service Co. v. Atlas Minerals, Inc. , 965 F . Supp. 1 162, 11 73 (C.D . Il l . 1997)
. Under Section 2-208(3) (810 ILCS 5/2-208(3) (West 2006)), waiver demons trat ed th rough th e c our se

of perf orm an ce ca n b e e f f ec ti v e to c h an ge th e ex pr es s te rm s of a c on tra ct. Wagner Excello Foods

, Inc. v. Fearn International, Inc. , 235 Ill . App. 3d at 232, 601 N.E .2d at 961. Th i s holds true e

ven f or contracts that ar

e f ull y i nteg rated. 81 0 ILC S 5/2-2 02(a) ( 2006)
. The p oli cy

b eh i n d th i s b road doctr

i n e of wai v er i n con tra ct l aw i s to “pr ev

en t th e w ai v i n g p ar ty fr o m ‘lu ll[in g] an o t he rint o a fa lse as su r an ce t ha t st r ict co mplia nc e w it h a co nt r ac t ua l du t y will not be required an

d then sue f

or noncompl

ia nce.’ ” Wagner Excello Foo ds, Inc. v. Fearn International, Inc. , 235 Ill . App. 3d at 233, 601 N.E .2d at 962, quo ting Whalen v. K Mart Corp. , 166 Il l . Ap p. 3d 33 9, 343, 5 19 N.E.2 d 991 ( 1988)
. At t his junct ur e, we no t e t hat t he missing t rial exhibits might be highly relevant t o t he1-06-1233

8 S mit h c o ns ist en t ly d en ied t his in h is t es t imo ny. -43- i ss ueof whether Lord &

Ess ex wai ve d the terms of

the pur ch as e ord er d ocu men t sy stem . F or in stance, i t is possi ble that in stances of wai

ver are ref

erred to in

the correspondence between Cus imano and Smith, or bet wee n Lo macz a nd P op p. Fur t her mor e, it is also po ssible t hat t he pa rti es ’ a cc oun ti ng rec ords rev eal si tua ti ons where Lord & Ess ex pai d M i dw es t de sp i

te n ot havi ng all the paperwor k that it now clai ms i s essential to paym ent. As stat ed above, we must constr ue this gap in

the reco rd against the appell ant, which i n this cas e means that we must
assume ev

iden ce of waiv

er is contained wi

thin the now-discarded exhi bi ts. We f urther note t hat even

if we were not to ma

ke our ruli

ng on the presum

ptions that emanat e fro m Lor d & E ssex’ s failure t o p ro vide t he t rial exhibits, t her e may well be sufficient
ev i de nc e i n th e re cord to i nd ep en de ntl y su ppor t Mi dw es t’s con ten ti on th at L ord & Ess ex di d n ot st r ict ly enfo r ce t he pa pe rwo r k r eq uir eme nt , an d t ha t Smit h ind uc ed t he m t o be lieve t ha t it wo uld not be st rict ly enforc ed in fut ur e. It s claim is cor ro bor at ed by t est imony from S mith indicat ing th at c on tra ct proc ed

ur es weren ot al

wa y s f oll owe d w i

th re sp ec t to pa

y men t. In pa rti cul ar , Sm i th ad mit t ed t ha t he ge ne r ally d id n o t r eq uir e s ign ed pu r ch as e o r de r s a s lo ng as Mid we st co uld pr es en t si gn ed con tra ctor ’s j ob re l ea se

f orm s. Fu rther more , there is e

v i den ce to s ug ge st th

at a si gnatu re f rom a L ord & Ess ex repres en tati ve wa s n ot al wa y s r eq ui red by Lord & Ess ex even f or contracto r’s j ob release notices , as Lomacz testifi ed that Smi

th authorized Mi

dwest empl

oyee Cu sima no t o sig n fo rhim. 8 Wh il e Midwest does not expli

ci tly say that t hi s beh

avi or caused detrim ental reli ance on i ts part, a reasonabl

e fac t fi nder could i

nf er it f rom the above-ci

ted testim ony a nd the f act that Midwest was i

nduced to make i

ts deli veries wi thout in each i nstance1-06-1233

-44-

obtaini ng a Lord & Essex

signature on the purchase order and contractor’s job rel ease notice

as req ui red by the term s of the con tracts. Thu s, a

l thou gh the tri al cou rt m ad e n o ex pl i ci t f i nd i ng on t he iss ue o f wa ive rdu e t o t he fac t t ha t it pr emis ed liabilit y o n t he cr ed it info r mat io n sh ee t , it co uld ha ve f ound th at wai ver was “c l earl y i nf erab l e f rom th e ci rcum stan ces ” un der the stan

dard
ar t iculat ed in Central Illinois Public Service Co. , di sc us se d a bo ve . S ee ge ne r ally In re Estate of Funk , 2 21 I ll. 2d 3 0, 96, 849 N. E. 2d 3 66, 403 (2 006 ) ( t rial co ur t dec ision may be affirmed o n any grounds). In an y even t, as pre vi ous l y di scus se d, L ord &

Ess ex ’s ac ce pta nc e a nd su bs eq ue nt s al e of t he go od s, a s we ll as its a ct ions t ake n t o imped e co mpliance wit h t he pu rc hase or der do cument syst em, a re sufficient t o s upp or t ou r finding t hat t he pu rc hase or der do cument syst em pr ese nt s no barrier to Midwest’s recovery under the subcontr acto r agreements. E. C onc l us i on Thus, f or t he f orego in g reasons, the j udgme

nt of the trial

court is aff irm ed. Mi dw est also r

eq ue sts th at w e r em

an d th e c as e f or c al cul ati on of addi ti on al cou rt c ost s and attor ney

fees in curred in pursuin g this appeal , as well a s addi

tional in terest t hat has ac crued on Lord & Essex’s deb

t. Because we have hel

d that the remedies of court co sts, at to rney f ees, and int er est pr ovid ed in t he cr edit informat ion she et ar e no t sup er sed ed by t he t er ms of t he
su bc ontr ac tor ag ree men ts, a nd be ca us e the re i

m bu rs em en t of cos ts a nd attorn ey f ee s is n ot lim ited in the c re dit informat ion she et t o t hos e incur re d o nly at t he t rial pr oc eed ing, in t hat t he credit i nf ormation sh

eet speaks m

ore expansi

vel y of pursuin g coll ection of pay

me nt “b y s uit,” we gr an t th i s req ue st.1-06-1233

-45-

Af fi rmed and rem

anded for further pro ceedings. McB RIDE, P.J ., and O’ MA LL EY, J., c oncu

r.