Beach Forwarders, Inc. v. Service By Air, Inc., No. 22-1217 (7th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Seventh Circuit US Court of Appeals?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Seventh Circuit US Court of Appeals. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Service hired Forwarders as its agent in 2010. The Agreement had a three-year term, a continuous one-year renewal option, and a mutual nonrenewal provision. A 2013 amendment stated that the Agreement would renew perpetually for consecutive one-year terms, unless Service, in its sole discretion, notifies Forwarders of its intention to terminate the Agreement 30 days before the annual expiration date. The amendment, however, left undisturbed the Agreement’s provision that Service shall not be deemed to be in default unless Forwarders has provided written notice of an alleged material breach and has given Service an opportunity to cure, after which Forwarders may terminate. “[T]ermination of this Agreement by [Forwarders] for any other reason shall be deemed a termination without cause.”
Forwarders sought a declaratory judgment that the amended Agreement was terminable at will. Service conceded that the amended Agreement was of indefinite duration and that Illinois law presumes that such contracts are terminable at will but argued the presumption was rebutted because the Agreement provided that Forwarders could end the Agreement only if Service failed to timely cure a material breach after notification. The court granted judgment on the pleadings that the termination was lawful. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The amended Agreement lacks a clear statement that the contract can only be terminated based upon the occurrence of certain conditions or events. Service has not rebutted the Illinois law presumption that this contract of indefinite duration is terminable at will.
Download PDF
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 22-1217 BEACH FORWARDERS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SERVICE BY AIR, INC., Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 1:21-cv-56 — Gary Feinerman, Judge. ____________________ ARGUED OCTOBER 25, 2022 — DECIDED AUGUST 7, 2023 ____________________ Before SYKES, Chief Judge, and FLAUM and LEE, Circuit Judges. LEE, Circuit Judge. Service By Air, Inc., a shipping and logistics company, hired Beach Forwarders, Inc. as its exclusive agent in Virginia. After ten years, the relationship soured, and Beach Forwarders wanted out. Service By Air told Beach Forwarders it could not walk away without breaching their perpetual contract. Beach Forwarders thought di erently and sought a declaratory judgment that it could and did lawfully 2 No. 22-1217 terminate the contract. The district court sided with Beach Forwarders and entered judgment on the pleadings, holding that the contract was terminable at will. We a rm. I. The parties entered into a service and agency agreement (Agreement) in 2010. The Agreement had a three-year term, a continuous one-year renewal option, and a mutual nonrenewal provision. Because it does not impact the outcome, we assume, as did the district court, that the parties amended the Agreement in 2013. The amendment modi ed the Agreement to state that the Agreement would renew perpetually for consecutive oneyear terms, unless Service By Air, in its sole discretion, noti es Beach Forwarders of its intention to terminate the Agreement thirty days prior to each annual expiration date. The amendment, however, left untouched the following cure provision in the Agreement: 20. TERMINATION A. SBA [Service By Air] shall not be deemed to be in default of this Agreement unless Agent [Beach Forwarders] has provided SBA written notice of an alleged material breach of this Agreement and provided SBA with at least thirty (30) days to correct such claimed breach or if the breach cannot be corrected within said thirty (30) days but SBA has provided Agent with evidence of its e orts to cure said breach, SBA shall be allowed time to cure said alleged breach which shall in no event be more than ninety (90) days after such notice. Upon No. 22-1217 3 expiration of said period Agent may terminate this Agreement e ective ten (10) days after delivery to SBA of notice thereof. A termination of this Agreement by Agent for any other reason shall be deemed a termination by Agent without cause. In August 2020, Beach Forwarders noti ed Service By Air that it believed that the Agreement, as amended, was terminable at will and that it wished to do so. By that time, Service By Air had been acquired by Radiant Logistics Inc., a shipping company. And Radiant’s counsel responded that: (1) only Service By Air possessed the right not to renew, and (2) Beach Forwarders had not noti ed Service By Air of any material breach and, as such, Beach Forwarders could not terminate the Agreement. II. Beach Forwarders sought a declaratory judgment on several points: rst, that the Agreement, as amended, was terminable at will and had been terminated in a timely manner; and second, that the amendment was void, unenforceable, and subject to rescission. Beach Forwarders moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In response, Service By Air conceded that the amended Agreement was of inde nite duration and that Illinois law presumes that such contracts are terminable at will. But, as Service By Air sees it, the presumption has been rebutted in this case, because the Agreement provided that Beach Forwarders could end the Agreement only if Service By Air failed to cure a material breach in a timely manner after noti cation. 4 No. 22-1217 The district court disagreed. It held that, even if it were to assume that the amendment was valid and enforceable, the unambiguous language of the Agreement established that it was terminable at will. Accordingly, the court granted a declaratory judgment on the pleadings that Beach Forwarders’ termination of the Agreement was lawful. 1 On appeal, Service By Air argues that the district court erred in granting judgment on the pleadings in Beach Forwarders’ favor because the amendment and the cure provision created a factual issue that requires discovery to determine whether a perpetual contract exists. For its part, Beach Forwarders contends that Illinois Supreme Court and circuit precedent instruct that the revised Agreement is terminable at will, notwithstanding the cure provision. III. We “review de novo the district court’s interpretation of a written contract, including its conclusion that the contract was terminable at will.” Burford v. Acct. Prac. Sales, Inc., 786 F.3d 582, 585 (7th Cir. 2015), overruled on other grounds by LHO Chi. River, L.L.C. v. Perillo, 942 F.3d 384 (7th Cir. 2019). We may af rm on any basis supported by the record. S. Branch LLC v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 46 F.4th 646, 649 (7th Cir. 2022). The parties agree that, pursuant to the choice-of-law provision in the Amended Agreement, Illinois law governs. “[I]n Illinois, the construction, interpretation, or legal e ect of a contract is a matter to be determined by the court as a question 1 Although Service By Air asserts that Beach Forwarders did not seek a declaration that it had lawfully terminated the Agreement, Beach Forwarders sought a declaration that the Agreement was terminable at will and that it had terminated the Agreement in a timely manner. No. 22-1217 5 of law.” Horne v. Elec. Eel Mfg. Co., 987 F.3d 704, 718 (7th Cir. 2021). “Under Illinois law, the goal of contract interpretation is to ascertain the parties’ intent and, in doing so, we rst look to ‘the plain and ordinary meaning’ of the contract language.” Selective Ins. Co. of S.C. v. Target Corp., 845 F.3d 263, 267 (7th Cir. 2016) (quoting Aeroground, Inc. v. CenterPoint Props. Tr., 738 F.3d 810, 813 (7th Cir. 2013)). We interpret the contract “as a whole, viewing each part in light of the others.” Aeroground, 738 F.3d at 813 (cleaned up). Turning our attention to the cure provision, we must read it in the context of the original Agreement, which was for a three-year term. During that term, neither party had discretion to terminate. There was a mutual nonrenewal provision at the end of the term, and, if the parties wished to continue the relationship beyond the set term, there was a one-year renewal provision. Within that framework, the cure provision was typical of an agency agreement with a xed term. See, e.g., FMS, Inc. v. Volvo Constr. Equip. N. Am., Inc., 557 F.3d 758, 759 (7th Cir. 2009); Morley-Murphy Co. v. Zenith Elecs. Corp., 142 F.3d 373, 375 (7th Cir. 1998). But then the amended Agreement eliminated the xed term and replaced it with language providing that the Agreement would renew automatically for an additional one-year term (presumably, without end) unless Service By Air stated otherwise. In so doing, the amendment triggered the application of Illinois law governing contracts of inde nite duration, which has long recognized that such contracts are presumptively terminable “at the will of the parties.” Jespersen v. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 700 N.E.2d 1014, 1015 (Ill. 1998). That said, an agreement “without a xed duration but which provides that it is terminable only for cause or upon the occurrence of a 6 No. 22-1217 speci c event is … terminable only upon the occurrence of the speci ed event and not at will.” Id. at 1016. Service By Air believes that the amended Agreement falls in the latter category; Beach Forwarders argues that Illinois’s default rule should apply. In analyzing this question, we rst consider the Illinois Supreme Court’s holding in Jespersen. There, a contract between a manufacturer and a distributor provided that the manufacturer “may … terminate this agreement for any of the[se] reasons”: (a) “failure to reasonably promote [the company’s] products”; (b) “breach of any term or condition of the agreement”; (c) “failure to make payment”; (d) the distributor’s “death, bankruptcy, or insolvency”; or (e) the sale or transfer “of all or any part of the [d]istributor’s rights under th[e] contract without the written approval and consent” of the manufacturer. Id. (emphasis added) (cleaned up). The court held that the term “may” is “permissive and equivocal” and, thus, the clear inference is that the enumerated “grounds are not the sole or exclusive basis for termination.” Id. From this, it concluded that, “[w]here a contract is inde nite in duration, the delineation of instances of material breach in the context of a permissive and nonexclusive termination provision will not create a contract terminable for cause.” Id. at 1017. The upshot of Jespersen is that, under Illinois law, a contract without a set term is terminable at will, absent a clear statement that the contract can only be terminated based upon the occurrence of certain conditions or events. Id. at 1016–17; see Baldwin Piano, Inc. v. Deutsche Wurlitzer GmbH, 392 F.3d 881, 885 (7th Cir. 2004) (“The presumption of terminability allows separation in the business world, unless the parties clearly provide otherwise. It is the business equivalent No. 22-1217 7 of no-fault divorce, with the possibility of covenant marriage if the parties make the necessary declarations.”); Burford, 786 F.3d at 586 (“This presumption in favor of inde nite contracts being terminable at will can be overcome if the parties clearly agree to place limits on when termination may take place.”). Baldwin Piano presents the type of clear statement that Jespersen requires. There, a licensing agreement provided: “Except as herein provided, … this Agreement shall continue in force without limit of period but may be cancelled by the Licensor for material breach.” 392 F.3d at 882. Although the provision used the word “may,” we focused on the preceding clause and held that a material breach was “indispensable to cancellation” because “[a] phrase beginning ‘except’ implies that the following language limits the parties’ options; otherwise it is a waste of ink and paper.” Id. at 882–83. Burford is another example. There, a corporation terminated its contract with its sales representative, and, when the sales representative sued, the company argued that the contract was of unlimited duration and presumptively terminable at will. 786 F.3d at 584–85. We held that the statement, “APS cannot terminate this agreement unless it is violated by Burford,” was clear enough to overcome the presumption. Id. at 587. Distinguishing Jespersen, we explained: “There is a decisive di erence between saying that A may terminate if B breaches and saying that A may terminate only if B breaches. Here, the di erence is between reading a sentence out of a contract or not, and between the right to terminate at will or only for cause.” Id. (cleaned up). Additionally, Service By Air cites Lichnovsky v. Ziebart International Corp., 324 N.W.2d 732 (Mich. 1982). In that case, a 8 No. 22-1217 franchise agreement provided it would remain in “full force and e ect inde nitely, unless terminated at an earlier date should licensee fail to perform any of the terms, conditions or provisions of the agreement and remain in default for a period of 30 days after the receipt of a notice from Ziebart.” Id. at 736 (cleaned up). The Supreme Court of Michigan held that “an agreement without a xed term or duration but which provides nevertheless that it is terminable only for cause has indeed an inde nite term or duration, but a provision that the agreement continues unless terminated for cause is enforceable.” Id. at 740 (emphasis added). Pointing to the cure provision, Service By Air contends that the amended Agreement contains language just as clear as that used in Baldwin Piano, Burford, and Lichnovsky. We disagree. At best, when the contract is viewed as a whole, the language of the cure provision is vague and unclear. The cure provision provides that Service By Air shall not be deemed to be in default unless Beach Forwarders has provided written notice of an alleged material breach and has given Service By Air an opportunity to cure, which under certain conditions may be extended up to ninety days. At the expiration of the ninety-day period, Beach Forwarders “may terminate this Agreement e ective ten days after delivery to Service By Air of notice of termination.” The last sentence reads: “A termination of this Agreement by [Beach Forwarders] for any other reason shall be deemed a termination without cause.” Conspicuously absent from this provision is any language of limitation or exclusivity, such as “except as herein provided” or “unless.” Without it, the cure provision falls short of the requirement in Jespersen that the contract contain a clear No. 22-1217 9 statement that a material breach is the sole or exclusive basis for termination by Beach Forwarders. In fact, the wording is permissive: Beach Forwarders “may terminate” the Agreement for cause. It also recognizes the possibility that Beach Forwarders might terminate the Agreement without cause. But nowhere does the Agreement expressly state that it can be terminated only for cause, nor does it impose a penalty for terminating without cause. Perhaps this lack of clarity might be forgiven in a contract with a de nite duration (as this Agreement was originally). But it falls well short of the clear and speci c language required by Jespersen now that the Agreement has no set end date. For its part, Service By Air asks: Why have a cure provision at all if a party could just terminate for convenience? But there are myriad economic reasons why a terminable-at-will contract may contain a cure provision that guides the parties when one party thinks the other is in default. For instance, the parties may wish to establish a procedure by which one party may obtain the other’s compliance before cutting bait. Or the parties may prefer a set time frame to encourage compromise. Alternatively, the parties simply may want to promote the mitigation of damages. All of these concerns are particularly relevant where, as here, coordination between the parties is pivotal in order to provide seamless and cost-e ective shipping services over an extended period. See Baldwin, 392 F.3d at 885 (“Because these long-term relations produce continuing pro ts for both sides, both have something to lose by taking the exit option without trying to work out di erences rst.”). All this to say, the amended Agreement lacks a clear statement that the contract can only be terminated based upon the 10 No. 22-1217 occurrence of certain conditions or events. Thus, Service By Air has not rebutted the presumption under Illinois law that this contract of inde nite duration is terminable at will. Because this issue is dispositive of the appeal, the district court’s entry of judgment on the pleadings in Beach Forwarders’ favor is AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
