it does not appear from the record that any of the Moving Defendants were expressly listed as parties to any bargain with Wafra. Under the general rule of a contract analysis under Illinois law, this is compelling evidence that no enforceable bargain relationship exists between Wafra and any of the Moving Defendants, in their individual capacities. See Media Comm., Inc. v. Multimedia, Sign Up, Inc., No. 99 C 5009, 1999 WL 1212652, *2 (N.D.Ill.Dec.14,1999) (“Under Illinois law, when an officer signs a document and indicates next to his signature his corporate affiliation, then absent evidence of contrary intent in the document, the officer is not personally bound”) (internal citations omitted); see also Sparks Tune-Up Centers, Inc. v. Strong, 1994 WL 188211, *4-5 (N.D.Ill. May 12, 1994) (<HOLDING>). Nonetheless, because it is not clear from the
holding that a forum selection clause was not enforceable against defendants that were not parties to the contract holding enforceable forum selection clauses in arbitration agreements holding that the forum selection clause at issue encompassed both contract and tort claims holding that a forum selection clause should not be enforced where a consumer is told by a corporate agent to ignore boilerplate contract language containing a forum selection clause where there is a material difference in bargaining power and where the forum designated by the contract has little to do with the transaction and is gravely inconvenient for the parties and witnesses holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum