3 R Health Care Products, Inc. v. Cardinal Health 110, LLC, 2026 IL App (1st) 241911 (Ill. App. Ct. May 26, 2026)
This matter emerged from a commercial supply contract dispute involving the distribution and warehousing of healthcare equipment. The plaintiff initiated an action for breach of contract, alleging that the defendant failed to fulfill mandatory volume requirements and improperly terminated a long-term logistics agreement. The defendant asserted that it was contractually entitled to terminate the arrangement without penalty due to systemic operational delays and performance failures on the part of the plaintiff, which it argued constituted a prior material breach of the baseline agreement.
The litigation centered on the interpretation of a multi-tiered notice and cure provision contained within the master services agreement. The contract required that before either party could execute a termination for cause, the non-breaching party was obligated to provide detailed written notice isolating the specific operational deficiencies, thereby triggering a strict thirty-day window for the counterparty to implement a comprehensive cure strategy.
The trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that the plaintiff’s chronic performance issues effectively excused the defendant from continuing its own performance under the contract. On appeal, the Illinois Appellate Court subjected the text of the termination clause to strict textual analysis to determine if the defendant had technically perfected its contractual right to terminate.
The Appellate Court reversed the summary judgment order, determining that the defendant had failed to provide the explicit, unequivocal notice mandated by the contract. The court observed that while the defendant had sent numerous emails complaining of general administrative delays, those communications did not formally invoke the contractual cure mechanism or explicitly state that a failure to rectify the issues would result in termination. The court held that commercial entities must strictly adhere to the procedural steps established in their agreements, declaring that “parties must strictly comply with contractually mandated notice and cure periods” before declaring a forfeiture of the contract, thereby remanding the case for further trial proceedings.
So while it is a time consuming process, businesspeople need to make sure their employees are following the notice provisions in their companies’ agreements. For companies using contract management software, there is no reason why this information is not entered into the system.
I must note that this is a situation where AI could be helpful to companies by either having a system where are contracts are reviewed and its terms are placed into a database for easy retrieval or review when notice needs to be provided. That said, make sure whatever system you use works well before using it in real life situations!
David Seidman is the principal and founder of Seidman Law Group, LLC. He serves as outside general counsel for companies, which requires him to consider a diverse range of corporate, dispute resolution and avoidance, contract drafting and negotiation, real estate, and other issues. He can be reached at david@seidmanlawgroup.com or 312-399-7390.
This blog post is not legal advice. Please consult an experienced attorney to assist with your legal issues.
Photo credit: Created using Gemini
