renewal clause in Illinois

1994Ceres appealed this ruling and the appellate court affirmed the trial court in Chicago City Bank and Trust Co. v. Ceres Terminals, Inc. (1981), 93 Ill.App.3d 623 , 49 Ill.Dec. 108 , 417 N.E.2d 798 , concluding that the trial court's valuation of the property was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.

1994Ceres appealed this ruling, and the appellate court affirmed the trial court in Chicago City Bank & Trust Co. v. Ceres Terminals, Inc. (1981), 93 Ill.

2025Regions is correct that interpreting the renewal clause otherwise would improperly nullify the article “an” and modify “term” by adding an “s.” See Nord, 2023 IL App (4th) 220669, ¶ 43 .

2025App. 3d at 719 , the letter of credit’s renewal clause provided that the agreement would be “ ‘automatically extended without amendment for one year from the present or any future expiration date hereof,’ ” and thus the beneficiary could draw on it “on or before November 5, 1990 or any automatically extended date.” (Emphases omitted.) The Third District held that this language constituted an evergreen provision that “indicate[d] the [issuer’s] intent to extend the credit to [the beneficiary] for an indefinite period of time.” Molter, 267 Ill.

1995As the City points out, if it were estopped from enforcing the ordinance because of a mistakenly issued or renewed license, the violation would exist "in perpetuity.” Lake Shore Riding Academy, 38 Ill.

1995App. 3d 242, 246 , 578 N.E.2d 194, 197-98 .) Moreover, since plaintiff was aware that his operation of the auto repair shop was in jeopardy when he received the renewal notice, he should have been on notice that the renewal was in error, or at least that it was contingent upon the ZBA’s ruling.

1979App. 2d 387 , 152 N.E.2d 402 , held that a five-year lease “with option to renew” entitled the lessee to a single five-year extension on the same terms specified for the initial period, save for the renewal clause.

1978Similarly in Caito v. Ferri, 44 R.I. 261 , 116 A. 897 (1922), a five-year lease which contained a renewal clause to be exercised by the lessee at the termination of the original term was held to be renewed upon a verbal request to renew made two days after the expiration of the original term.

1978Similarly in Caito v. Ferri, 44 R.I. 261 , 116 A. 897 (1922), a five-year lease which contained a renewal clause to be exercised by the lessee at the termination of the original term was held to be renewed upon a verbal request to renew made two days after the expiration of the original term.

1975Rep. 142.) The same section also provides that the renewal privilege “shall not be construed as a vested right.” Pence v. Village of Rantoul, 12 Ill.App.3d 446 , 298 N.E.2d 775 ( 4th Dist. 1973); Nechi v. Daley, 40 Ill.App.2d 326 , 188 N.E.2d 243 (1st Dist. 1963).

1975Rep. 142.) The same section also provides that the renewal privilege “shall not be construed as a vested right.” Pence v. Village of Rantoul, 12 Ill.App.3d 446 , 298 N.E.2d 775 ( 4th Dist. 1973); Nechi v. Daley, 40 Ill.App.2d 326 , 188 N.E.2d 243 (1st Dist. 1963).

1975Rep. 142.) The same section also provides that the renewal privilege “shall not be construed as a vested right.” Pence v. Village of Rantoul, 12 Ill.App.3d 446 , 298 N.E.2d 775 ( 4th Dist. 1973); Nechi v. Daley, 40 Ill.App.2d 326 , 188 N.E.2d 243 (1st Dist. 1963).

1975Rep. 142.) The same section also provides that the renewal privilege “shall not be construed as a vested right.” Pence v. Village of Rantoul, 12 Ill.App.3d 446 , 298 N.E.2d 775 ( 4th Dist. 1973); Nechi v. Daley, 40 Ill.App.2d 326 , 188 N.E.2d 243 (1st Dist. 1963).

1974In Playmate Club, Inc. v. Country Clubs, Inc. (1970), 62 Tenn. App. 383 , 462 S.W. 2d 890 , the Court of Appeals of Tennessee went considerably farther in holding a renewal clause in a lease leaving only the rent to be fixed by agreement, to imply a reasonable rental figure — a figure which can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, thus meeting the test of “definiteness” — and that such a renewal clause is valid and enforceable.

1974In Playmate Club, Inc. v. Country Clubs, Inc. (1970), 62 Tenn. App. 383 , 462 S.W. 2d 890 , the Court of Appeals of Tennessee went considerably farther in holding a renewal clause in a lease leaving only the rent to be fixed by agreement, to imply a reasonable rental figure — a figure which can be ascertained with reasonable certainty, thus meeting the test of “definiteness” — and that such a renewal clause is valid and enforceable.

1909(Page on Contracts, sec. 509; Corcoran v. Lehigh Coal Co. 138 Ill. 390 .) In our opinion the lease in question falls under the rule above announced, and should be read and enforced as though the renewal clause was not in it.