Quake Construction, Inc. V. American Airlines, Inc. Supreme Court of Illinois 1990 Facts: In February 1985, American hired Jones to prepare bid specifications, accept bids, and award contracts for the expansion of American’s facilities at O’Hare International Airport. Quake received an invitation and submitted a bid to Jones. Jones orally notified Quake that Quake was awarded the project. Jones sent Quake a contract informing Quake that they would need to enter into agreements with their subcontractors and sent them to Jones. On April 18, a letter was sent to Quake outlining the project and their roles. The project would take 60 days and should start within five days time. The contract also included a clause that Jones reserves the right to cancel this letter of intent if the parties cannot agree ona fully exeuted subcontract agreement. Jones and Quake agreed orally to several changed but never signed the document and a few days later Jones advised Quake that they were the general contractors. The same day American sent them a letter telling them that Quakes involvement with the project was terminated. Arguments: Quake argues that they had a legal binding agreement and are entitled to damages from breach of said contract. Jones contends that they had a right to terminate the agreement that was agreed to by both parties and that supersedes any other agreement between parties. Procedural History: The circuit court dismissed Quakes’ complaint based on the right to cancel in the contract. Quake appealed the decision and the appellate court ruled that the letter was ambiguous and ruled in favor of Quake’s construction. American Airlines appealed that decision based on the evidence they provided. Issue: Was the letter of intent from Jones to Quake an enforceable contract that a cause of action may be brought? Was the letter of intent too ambiguous for Jones to use to dismiss the contract? Judgment: The Court rules in favor of Quake construction and affirms and remands the appellate court decision. Allows for jury to decide case based on ambiguity of letter and on evidence provided. Holding: Time perimeters can lead one to determine that there was intent for the contract to be binding. The existence of a cancellation clause itself means that the two parties agreed that the contract was indeed binding. The true intent behind a contract is the controlling feature and follows precedent in other states. Hamer v. Sidway