{
  "id": 2622776,
  "name": "Robert Bartels, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Warren O. Denler et al., Defendants-Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bartels v. Denler",
  "decision_date": "1975-07-25",
  "docket_number": "No. 74-374",
  "first_page": "499",
  "last_page": "502",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "30 Ill. App. 3d 499"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 340,
    "char_count": 5396,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.725,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.951986992110295e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8489270996108267
    },
    "sha256": "2c6b590f0a57be9a74334046aa2e46a149d6f556b7f06b4b5444417b71174d6f",
    "simhash": "1:a0e9c0f9650ce7cf",
    "word_count": 875
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:28.126609+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Robert Bartels, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Warren O. Denler et al., Defendants-Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE STOUDER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis case arises out of an employment contract entered into between the plaintiff, Robert Bartels, and the defendants, Warren O. Denier and Jan Denier. The defendants have appealed from the judgment entered against them.\nThe defendants are coowners of a business located in Peru, Illinois, known as Dennler\u2019s Supermarket, in which they employ many people. On January 1, 1969, the plaintiff and the defendants entered into a Contract of Employment. This contract remained in force throughout 1971.\nIn addition to a weekly salary, the contract provided that Dennler\u2019s would pay plaintiff 10 percent of the net profits of the supermarket as determined at the end of each fiscal year. This incentive bonus was based upon an entire fiscal year and could be earned by plaintiff only if he remained in Dennler\u2019s employ for a complete fiscal year.\nUnder the contract, either party could terminate the agreement at any time by giving 30 days\u2019 written notice. The contract also provided, in pertinent part:\n\u201cUpon discovering that Bartels is seeking other employment, Dennler\u2019s may immediately terminate this agreement and no written notice will be required.\nft ft ft\n4. Restrictive Covenant: Bartels shall devote his entire time and no less than 48 hours for a standard five-day work week, to the performance of his duties and he shall not, without the consent of Dennler\u2019s, directly or indirectly, alone or as a member of a partnership, or as an officer, director, stockholder, or employee of any other corporation, partnership, firm, or business, be en- . gaged in or concerned with any other duties or pursuits whatsoever during the term of this agreement.\u201d\nBeginning in September, 1970, plaintiff also was employed in a drugstore in Princeton, Illinois. He worked there on his days off from Demoler s for 16 to 20 hours per week. Bartels never informed the defendants of this employment, but it was brought to their attention by other sources.\nIt appears that Warren Denier knew of plaintiff\u2019s part-time job during 1971, but never said anything to him. Jan Denier learned about this outside employment in July, 1971. As a result, Jan Denier requested plaintiff to spend more time in their store, which plaintiff in fact did. Bartels was not requested to quit working at the store in Princeton.\nIn early 1971, Bartels entered negotiations for the purchase of a supermarket in Colfax, Illinois. In December, 1971, in order to purchase this store, Bartels applied for a loan at the Anchor State Bank in Anchor, Illinois. On December 31, 1971, the transaction for this purchase was closed. On January 1, 1972, plaintiff informed Jan Denier that he was quitting and was giving his 30-day notice. At no time during 1971 were the defendants aware of the fact that Bartels either purchased or was negotiating for the purchase of a supermarket.\nOn January 5, 1972, Jan Denier sent Bartels a note, pursuant to tire contract of employment, stating that the defendants considered such contract \"null and void in consideration of your having gone into business for yourself.\u201d Consequently, the defendants refused to pay the 10-percent incentive bonus, as provided in the contract.\nThereafter, the plaintiff brought this action to recover the incentive bonus. The trial court found that the plaintiff was entitled to this additional compensation, so long as he remained an employee of the defendant. The court further decided:\n\u201cThere were conditions under which the Defendants could have terminated the employment but they did not do so and therefore, they are not in a position to deny the Plaintiff any part of his compensation * w *.\n* * * [T]he Defendants waived any violation for reason of the Plaintiff being employed in a drug store in Princeton, Illinois, as they learned of that employment and made no request of the Plaintiff that he terminate that employment. It is further the Court\u2019s opinion that the Plaintiff\u2019s purchase of a supermarket did not violate the contract during the year of 1971. The purchase did give the Defendants the right to terminate the contract of employment during the year 1972 but would not affect the right of compensation for 1971.\u201d\nWe are in accord with the trial court\u2019s finding and, therefore, affirm the judgment entered.\nIt is well established that a party to a contract may waive provisions contained in the contract for his benefit. (12 Ill. L. & Pr. Con tracts \u00a7 408 (1955).) Although plaintiff's part-time job constituted a violation of the restrictive covenant, the defendants\u2019 conduct upon learning of such employment waived strict compliance with that provision of the contract.\nThe plaintiff\u2019s purchase of a supermarket on December 31, 1971, did not operate to defeat his right to the bonus incentive for 1971 since he had remained at his job for a complete year. Therefore, the plaintiff\u2019s purchase had no effect upon the bonus incentive for 1971.\nFor the reasons stated, the judgment of the circuit court of La Salle County is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nALLOY and STENGEL, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE STOUDER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Anthony C. Raccuglia, of Peru (David E. Haskins, of counsel), for appellants.",
      "Livingston, Barger, Brandt, Slater & Schroeder, of Bloomington (William C. Wetzel, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Robert Bartels, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Warren O. Denler et al., Defendants-Appellants.\n(No. 74-374;\nThird District\nJuly 25, 1975.\nAnthony C. Raccuglia, of Peru (David E. Haskins, of counsel), for appellants.\nLivingston, Barger, Brandt, Slater & Schroeder, of Bloomington (William C. Wetzel, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0499-01",
  "first_page_order": 525,
  "last_page_order": 528
}