connection with the development of a waste-to-energy facility at the Cal Sag site. The Village claims that almost all of the development activities and expenditures came about after the promise of TIE support and were carried out in reliance upon it. Accordingly, it claims that plaintiffs argument ignores the 1988 development agreement and the developer’s reliance on it. Also, it asserts that plaintiff offered no facts to explain why the 1998 development agreement did not legally obligate the Village to make good on its promise of TIE support, as the law is clear that a municipality has a “duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the contracts it signs contingent on formal approval from collapsing.” Heritage Commons Partner v. Village of Summit, 730 F. Supp. 821, 825 (N.D. Ill. 1990) (<HOLDING>). Such a contention, it continues, has ample
holding that such provisions are valid recognizing that the elements of a claim for breach of contract are 1 existence of a valid contract and 2 breach of the terms of that contract holding that a valid contract requires acceptance of an offer holding that contract termination is defense that contract is voidable not void and that such defense is not available against thirdparty beneficiary benefit fund under  515 of erisa holding that a municipal contract to be financed out of a special fund such as tie is valid