ILCS » Chapter 810 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

810 ILCS 5/2-309 (2026)

Absence of specific time provisions; notice of termination

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(810 ILCS 5/2-309) (from Ch. 26, par. 2-309)
    Sec. 2-309. Absence of specific time provisions; notice of termination.
    (1) The time for shipment or delivery or any other action under a contract if not provided in this Article or agreed upon shall be a reasonable time.
    (2) Where the contract provides for successive performances but is indefinite in duration it is valid for a reasonable time but unless otherwise agreed may be terminated at any time by either party.
    (3) Termination of a contract by one party except on the happening of an agreed event requires that reasonable notification be received by the other party and an agreement dispensing with notification is invalid if its operation would be unconscionable.
(Source: Laws 1961, p. 2101.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Jespersen v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 700 N.E.2d 1014 (Ill. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jespersen v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 700 N.E.2d 1014 (Ill. 1998). “[3] Under section 2-309 of the Uniform Commercial Code (codified at 810 ILCS 5/2-309(2) (West 1994)), a contract which calls for successive performances but is indefinite in duration "may be terminated at any time by either party.”
BioUrja Renewables, LLC v. GOJO Indus., Inc. (C.D. Ill. 2026). · cites it 3× “” 810 ILCS 5/2-309 at UCC Cmt. 1. However, vague promises of performance alone do not preclude application of the gap filler provision.”
Malnove Inc. of Nebraska v. Hearthside Baking Co., 944 F. Supp. 657 (N.D. Ill. 1996). “The only response he received from the Cohens was that Maurice Lenell would take the boxes when they wanted them and they did not want them yet.”
— 810 ILCS 5/2-309(1) — 1 case
Malnove Inc. of Nebraska v. Hearthside Baking Co., 944 F. Supp. 657 (N.D. Ill. 1996). “The only response he received from the Cohens was that Maurice Lenell would take the boxes when they wanted them and they did not want them yet.”
— 810 ILCS 5/2-309(2) — 1 case
Jespersen v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co., 700 N.E.2d 1014 (Ill. 1998). “[3] Under section 2-309 of the Uniform Commercial Code (codified at 810 ILCS 5/2-309(2) (West 1994)), a contract which calls for successive performances but is indefinite in duration "may be terminated at any time by either party.”
— 810 ILCS 5/2-309(3) — 1 case
BioUrja Renewables, LLC v. GOJO Indus., Inc. (C.D. Ill. 2026). “” 810 ILCS 5/2-309 at UCC Cmt. 1. However, vague promises of performance alone do not preclude application of the gap filler provision.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.