Fay Corp. v. Bat Holdings I, Inc., 646 F. Supp. 946, 950 (W.D.Wash. 1986); see also Amelong v. Peacock, 278 Ill. App. 142, 144-45 (1934); R. Cunningham, W. Stoebuck D. Whitman, The Law of Property 383 (1984). Moreover, the lease itself explicitly incorporates this concept of continuing liability, providing that

Accordingly, BAB remained liable to Alecta for damages incurred subsequent to the second and third assignments, unless and until Alecta released BAB from its obligations under the lease. See Amelong v. Peacock, 278 Ill. App. 142, 145 (1934) ("[i]n order to release the lessee after an assignment by him of his interest in the lease, there must be a release by the lessor or an agreement to absolve the lessee from his obligation"). ¶ 42 BAB relies on paragraph 8 of the fifth assignment in arguing that it had been released from its obligations under the lease and consequently, it could not be held liable for damages incurred by Alecta as a result of Kareena's failure to pay rent. Paragraph 8 of the fifth assignment stated that BAB was deemed to "no longer be a party to this [l]ease." Alecta argues that it was never a party to the fifth assignment, that there was no evidence that it drafted or signed the document, that it never agreed to the terms of the fifth assignment and, thus, privity of contract remained and BAB was not released from liability.