for its position or factual evidence that the defendant waived its right to object) so I will not consider the contents of this letter at this time. Plaintiff also argues that even if SOG never explicitly agreed to the terms of the revised August Letter, it manifested its assent by failing to take action after plaintiff accepted AF2’s initial payment and began paying claims. In certain limited circumstances, acceptance may be evidenced by silence where an offeree accepts the benefit of offered services with opportunity to reject them and with the knowledge that they were offered with the expectation of compensation. See Restatement (Second) Contracts § 69; Boomer v. AT & T Corp., 309 F.3d 404, 415 (7th Cir.2002) (citing Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc., 105 F.3d 1147, 1148-49 (7th Cir.1997)) (<HOLDING>). SOG was clearly aware, and does not dispute,
holding that under illinois law silence can constitute acceptance under the terms of the restatement of contracts holding that under illinois law interpreting the meaning of a contract is a question of law determined by the court holding that judgment based on terms of settlement agreement must be interpreted under law of contracts rather than law of judgments holding that party was an agent under the plain terms of his contracts holding that acceptance of payments under the louisiana state compensation act does not constitute an election of the remedy under state law precluding recovery under the longshoremens act