√─┌╬─ ┐│ LaserRetrieve Version 2.4É %Thursday August 23, 1990 1:31 am │└╬─┘┌╬─┐│à :154 ILL. APP. 3D 685 PALEN V. CULLOM CAPITAL WOODWORKINGà 1987å │├╬─?┤│ damages. Holding the vendors were entitled to collect on theæ E││ vendees' promissory note, the appellate court found the promissoryï G││ note constituted a "payment" which could be forfeited to the vendorsë n││ in the event of default. Since the principal contract did not specifically ││ require use of a promissor╔û═ ╗ reason toæ ││ prevent the vendors from c║ä
Print Optionsà ║ince it was not aè ││ part of the forfeited cont╠û═╣ct on a negotiableë /││ instrument received as a p║ │ Write to Fileà
║ent contractÅ L││ prior to forfeiture as in ║ │ Out to Printer 1 ║light upon the questionä A││ of whether a guarantor is ║ │ Out to Printer 2 ║he principalÅ ││ agreement no longer exists╚û═╝¢ ││à @>> 5 Since the individual defendants guaranteed only performanceë J││ of the contract by the corporate defendant, forfeiture of that contractå F││ released the guarantors' obligation as a matter of law. The circuitè >││ court properly entered summary judgment for the defendants.Æ ││╬ ││à Affirmed.└ │└╬─┘å D<ENTER>=Choose Highlighted Option <F1>=Help <ESC>=Document Displayå ≥p■p⌠■╜pô├pì┼pï╦pàÜpÿïpôÜpÿÆpîÜpÿôpïÜpûìpæÜpöpÿpåÜpûìpæÜpÿ₧┼pï╚pê─pî╝pöp╧Äpù■╞pàplayå ≥p■p⌠■╜pô├pì
