The Confidentiality Agreement will be construed against Midway as the drafter thereof. Brown v. City of Pekin, 129 Ill. App.3d 46, 49, 84 Ill.Dec. 327, 329, 472 N.E.2d 77, 79 (3d Dist. 1984). 100.

• 3 There has been no confession of judgment in this case. Moreover, application of the aforementioned provision to a case not involving confession of judgment is not warranted. It is a general principle of contract law that an ambiguous provision in a contract will be construed against the party who prepared the contract and who chose the words used. Brown v. City of Pekin (1984), 129 Ill. App.3d 46, 49, 472 N.E.2d 77, quoting Des Plaines Motor Sales, Inc. v. Whetzal (1965), 58 Ill. App.2d 143, 306 N.E.2d 806. • 4 Awarding attorney fees and the proportion to be paid are within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. ( Michigan Avenue National Bank v. Evans, Inc. (1988), 176 Ill. App.3d 1047, 531 N.E.2d 872.)

This is because it is the maker who chose the words to be used and he is therefore more responsible for the existence of the ambiguity. ( Brown v. City of Pekin (1984), 129 Ill. App.3d 46, 472 N.E.2d 77; Scheduling Corp. of America v. Massello (1983), 119 Ill. App.3d 355, 456 N.E.2d 298; Ricke v. Ricke (1980), 83 Ill. App.3d 1115, 405 N.E.2d 351.) Thus, the contract will be construed most strongly against him. Dr. Charles W. Smith III, Ltd. v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Co. (1984), 122 Ill. App.3d 725, 462 N.E.2d 604.

We recognize that any ambiguities in the contract should be considered against the defendants at whose instance it was drafted. ( Cedar Park Cemetery Association, Inc. v. Village of Calumet Park (1947), 398 Ill. 324, 75 N.E.2d 874; Brown v. City of Pekin (1984), 129 Ill. App.3d 46, 472 N.E.2d 77.) However, we find no ambiguity in the instrument.