that party. Bates & Rogers Construction Corp. v. Greeley & Hansen, 109 Ill. 2d 225, 232 (1985). “The rule is, that the right of a l. App. 3d 175, 179 (1989) (determining that a contract between the general contractor and a subcontractor did not directly benefit the owner where the contract expressly stated that it was the parties’ intent that no contractual relationship should exist between the owner and the subcontractor); (4) Barney v. Unity Paving, Inc., 266 Ill. App. 3d 13, 19-20 (1994) (concluding that a bus passenger was not a third-party beneficiary to a contract between the city and contractors which obligated the contractors to require all subcontractors to have motor vehicle insurance); and (5) Federal Insurance Co. v. Turner Construction Co., 277 Ill. App. 3d 262, 269 (1995) (<HOLDING>). While none of these cases is directly on
holding that the tenant was not a holdover tenant despite retaining keys because the tenant recognized the termination of the tenancy relinquished possession of the premises and the landlord was able to gain access to the property holding that where the landlord was aware the tenant had moved out a tenant who attached a lock to the door and accidentally retained the keys to the lock was not a holdover tenant holding that where the will did not provide the life tenant with the power to sell and it was not necessary to sell the property for the payment of estate expenses the life tenant was not entitled to the proceeds from the sale of the property instead the proceeds became a part of the residuary estate holding that after township acquired property entered into lease with tenant that was renewable absent notice of termination and terminated lease tenant was not displaced person because tenant will be moving not as a result of the acquisition  of such real property but rather because township having already acquired the property has merely declined to renew the lease quotation omitted holding that a subcontracting agreement was not for the direct benefit of the tenant where the tenant was merely listed in titles on construction drawings and the indemnification provisions did not identify any third parties