Legal Opinion · Dissent
Regency Commercial Associates, LLC v. Lopax, Inc.
Appellate Court of Illinois
Decided May 4, 2007No. 4-06-0332Published
1DissentJustice Cook
I respectfully dissent. I would reverse, and hold that Buffalo Wild Wings is a restaurant facility whose primary food product is chicken and accordingly barred by the contract.
Parol evidence should not be considered in this case. This contract contains an integration clause. Paragraph 8.2 provides:
“Entire Contract. This [cjontract constitutes the entire agreement between [s]eller and [b]uyer, and there are no other covenants, agreements, promises, terms and provisions, conditions, undertakings or understandings either oral or written, between them concerning the [p]roperty other than those…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Air Safety, Inc. v. Teachers Realty Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 1999
- BERRYMAN TRANSFER AND STORAGE CO., INC. v. New Prime, Inc.Appellate Court of Illinois · 2004
- Dusthimer v. Board of TrusteesAppellate Court of Illinois · 2006
- White City Shopping Center v. PR Restaurants, LLCMassachusetts Superior Court · 2006