Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment in breach of contract action alleging that defendant improperly terminated contract calling for plaintiff to provide defendant with financial and consulting services that plaintiff claimed was for duration of defendant’s professional basketball career. Dist. Ct. could properly find that subject contract covered at most four years where plaintiff conceded in prior deposition that new contract would be drafted after completion of defendant’s initial four-year basketball contract, and instant contract otherwise lacked provisions for compensation beyond said four-year period. Moreover, plaintiff could not counter concessions made in his deposition with subsequent sworn written statement. Also, while defendant terminated contract in third year, plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to support any remedy for loss of income arising out of fourth year of contract. Finally, Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing on res judicata grounds plaintiff’s tortious interference with prospective business advantage claim based on Illinois law, where plaintiff’s similar claim based on California law had been dismissed for failure to state cause of action.