The opinion of the court was delivered by: MARVIN E. ASPEN
MARVIN E. ASPEN, District Judge:
Plaintiff Capitol Resource Funding, Inc. brings this three count complaint against defendants American Way of Illinois, Inc., Arrington International, Inc., and Hilliard Arrington. Presently before the court are plaintiff's motions for summary judgment against American Way and judgment on the pleadings against Arrington International and Hilliard Arrington. For the reasons set forth below, plaintiff's motions are granted.
In June, 1983, defendants American Way and Arrington International entered into an agreement, whereby Arrington was to ship certain goods to American Way in return for payment of $ 336,000. Arrington International subsequently assigned various of its accounts receivable, including those of American Way, to plaintiff Capitol Resource. American Way was notified of the assignment, and in a letter responding to an inquiry from Capitol Resource, acknowledged the following:
1. The stated amount due represented under the invoices is $ 336,000 (the "Amount" Due).
2. All of the products sold by Arrington International, Inc. have been received by [American Way] and have been accepted as satisfactory.
3. The Amount Due is due and payable in full and is not subject to any offsets, returns, claims, credits or backcharges which may reduce the Amount Due.
4. [American Way] agrees not to assert against [Capitol Resource] any claim or defense which [American Way] may have against [Arrington International].
5. [American Way] acknowledges that [Capitol Resource] intends to purchase the right to receive monies due under the invoices and that, in doing so, [Capitol Resource] will rely on this letter.
Capitol Resource subsequently demanded payment of the full balance. American Way, however, only paid $ 15,000 of the amount due, thus leaving $ 321,000 outstanding. Capitol Resource has filed this suit to recover the outstanding balance.
II. Summary Judgment Standard
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, summary judgment is appropriate if "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). This standard places the initial burden on the moving party to identify "those portions of 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,' which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265, 106 S. Ct. 2548 (1986) (quoting Rule 56(c)). Once the moving party has done this, the non-moving party "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). In deciding a motion for summary judgment, the court must read all facts in the light most favorable to the ...