it did, the court, in essence, added that exception to paragraph eight and thus provided Prime with a better bargain than Prime had negotiated for itself. Illinois recognizes a strong presumption against provisions that easily could have been included in a contract but were not. Miner v. Fashion Enterprises, Inc., 342 Ill. App. 3d 405, 417, 794 N.E.2d 902, 914 (2003). Further, “the rights of parties to a contract are limited by the terms expressed in the contract and courts may not rewrite language or add provisions to make the agreement more equitable.” Jewelers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Firstar Bank Illinois, 341 Ill. App. 3d 14, 26, 792 N.E.2d 1, 11 (2003) (McBride, PJ., specially concurring in part and dissenting in part); Shields Pork Plus, 329 Ill. App. 3d at 312, 767 N.E.2d at 950 (<HOLDING>); Frederick v. Professional Truck Driver
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 evidence of custom and usage is admissible to add to a contract that is silent on a particular matter holding that person who is not party to contract does not have standing to challenge contract recognizing that courts will not add terms to a contract about which the contract is silent holding a deviation from the terms of a contract constitutes an impairment of contract