Publications

Illinois Bar Journal
Articles on Contracts

There must be common liability between the parties in a contribution claim July 2000 Illinois Law Update, Page 380 On May 18, 2000, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate court's decision by dismissing a fourth-party complaint for contribution that was based solely on contractual liability when the fourth-party defendants were not parties to the contract in dispute.
Employee Noncompete and Nondisclosure Restrictive Covenants By Paul R. Kitch April 2000 Article, Page 230 A summary of Illinois law governing noncompete restrictive covenants, with tips for employers.
Drafting with Style By Maureen B. Collins March 2000 Column, Page 173 In the last two columns we looked at the drafting process and component parts of transaction documents.
Drafting Transaction Documents: The Pieces of the Puzzle By Maureen B. Collins February 2000 Column, Page 110 Assemble the standard provisions and create the picture of a well-done deal.
Creating a Document to Meet Your Client’s Needs By Maureen B. Collins January 2000 Column, Page 47 Drafting a seaworthy document requires more than pasting form provisions into place; you have to learn the facts and the law.
Drafting Contract Provisions for E-commerce Sites By Richard C. Balough January 2000 Article, Page 40 Tips for drafting contracts that govern the rights and obligations of e-commerce-site users.
Nonassignability Clauses in Commercial Leases: When is an Assignment Not an Assignment? By John C. Murray December 1999 Article, Page 658 This article discusses a Rule 23 opinion holding that a nonassignability clause in a lease does not prohibit the tenant's collateral assignment of its interest as security for a loan.
Modifying Contract Disclaimers in Employee Handbooks After Doyle v Holy Cross Hospital By J. Stuart Garbutt and Joseph M. Friedman November 1999 Article, Page 580 The Illinois Supreme Court ruled last year that merely allowing employees to continue work may not constitute consideration for unilateral modifications of employee handbooks. Here's how to deal with Doyle.
Reading Between the Lines of Doyle: When Is New Consideration Required? By Tamara L. Vergara November 1999 Article, Page 584 If a document does not alter the presumption of at-will employment, it may be beyond the reach of Doyle, this author argues.
Correspondence from Our Readers June 1999 Column, Page 294 In their ably researched and written article on the parol evidence rule in the April Journal, Andrew R. Schwartz and Matthew R. Henderson succinctly summarize the rationale for the rule by posing the rhetorical question, "If the contract does not reflect the parties' agreement, why did they sign it?''
Resolving Contract Ambiguity: Parol Evidence Versus the Rules of Contract Construction By Andrew R. Schwartz and Matthew R. Henderson April 1999 Article, Page 204 The authors argue that courts should entertain parol evidence only as a last resort.
Unilateral modifications to an employee handbook that disadvantage an employee fail for lack of consideration April 1999 Illinois Law Update, Page 190 On February 19, 1999, the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court when it held that an employer may not unilaterally alter the terms of a contract to an employee's disadvantage in the absence of a reservation of the right by the employer to make such a change.
Advising Employers About Wrongful Discharge Under Illinois Contract and Tort Law By David E. Krchak March 1999 Article, Page 160 A primer on wrongful discharge, with an emphasis on employee handbooks and retaliatory discharge.