decided extensively in my brief every single one of them when i started on this road to create this was like you know what this agreement was like no other and i'm going to ask your question with specifics but i just want you to know it's not mean representing that this is a different distinct and unique arrangement between these parties test their own words to me that's what western plastics told me that's what i did know you tell me now why is it different let's just start down the litany of lists so first of all i like no other i t w this big company they go and they set up obviously but the why is it different because the park next door the people are in now from i c to you telling western plastics employees what to do there's a conflict in the evidence on whether or not they're monitoring equipment they go a little like no other arrangement will they go that profits and what's actually end if you look at every one of these cases that we're both citing to you in terms of losses in profits let's talk about that whether it's this court's opinion on the lottery ticket what's the what's the loss of that went to this court in the to ensure the existence of an express agreement is just one of several factors courts consider in determining whether in joint future exist that's her case not mine that's her case not point and it continues contractual relationship with the clients all these cases stand for one proposition i suggest you and your decision and by which i also cited to this court they want to get into the weeds are you just look at the workforce i suggest you there's a number of reasons you don't pay the interpretation important this contract was nine hundred ninety three my client was injured fourteen years later in the testimony there's no question that the the terms and conditions of this contract or the time which changed and we look at what you told me to do and my her and what you told the others to do with my her is what you have an x and kind f b i that changed the nature of the relationship according to my her didn't take him this experience seven so there's a number of reasons i'm saying that it's in baby was various portions this contract that they're relying upon began relying on this joint venture case law which says yes you do look at the written agreement but then you look at the on a written agreement three i'm looking at beyond the actually conduct of the parties after the written agreement is compiled western classics about how they conducted themselves which i would suggest is in conflict with what they really want to hang their hat on which is this independent contractor thing i mean it wants to profit from the sale of this product to anyone else western discussion that they want to bring out these out of court cases which is devin's only saying usual benefit and if that's always guy thing who says i'm not saying that's all i've got i'm saying beyond that number one and i answer your question i put the testimony that i have the letters about so they're backing away they're evacuating this whole thing you've got to have every one of these little there is no discussion there's no evidence of a surety of losses there's no evidence of loss at all we're still going to say there's a joint venture and i'm saying to you if they want to get by down the semantics and cite you all these new york and texas cases i'm just going only case more to what each of the parties put into it as a loss and they included not only the financial investment but they also specifically looked at time and effort of the parts and here you have that on both sides right you've got  the employees coming by and spending time on this plastic production and western plastic people as well all i'm saying she was that the courts look at the expenditure of costs and determine whether or not there's a loss and please i beg of you ed i'm sure a summary judgment all i'm suggesting it does not the law doesn't require the court only to consider the contract in every circumstance but what the case law doesn't say and there's what is contradict what contradicts really the basis for the plaintiff's argument i'll submit to the court is that a clear expression of what the party's intent is it has to clear to the contrary can be ignored and that's what can't be a fair so what happens in this case is and it is very am because it's on life public electric which explicitly rejected the existence of a joint venture and the language of that contract maybe answer to your question your honor is there other portions of the contract actually also support the notion and only support the notion that these parties did not intend to create a joint venture and i don't believe that there is any provision in the courtyard of the country that does support the notion in also the provision in the paragraph seven that says ok here's our premier say we're going to deal with liabilities this is not a sheer liability situation western play is x is going to be responsible for liabilities that could the intellectual property this is not a sheer thing this is only morningside t w and there is another aspect of the contract that i believe says loud and clear and unambiguous glee is this is not a joint venture and to the extent th public electric specifically said we're not in a joint venture i think and i think public electric does control this case in his business and this is directly on point but in addition i think arab language prius is even better because it doesn't we're not a joint venture it says we are not going to share a liability as we are not going to be able to have the authority to make you responsible for what i do so it gets down to gets being you know he gets into the heart of  joint venture which is essentially a partnership and partners are agents of each other and they can buy each other and this is exactly the opposite of what's provided for in this contract and this was a t w component part of the contract sure like to go back to focus for just a second to the cost improvement sure for vision in the contract don't you think that the parties agreement to share equally the benefits of these cost improvements really suggest that they intended for their profits and losses to rise or fall together and other words by a share in the benefits of these cost improvements were to parties preventing one from taking creasing the profits that's not the same thing as sharing profits i mean the concept of the consultation you're ok in your here's my explanation for that the concept of sharing profits looks still owe me an s p s it's all the money and so the source of the money that goes into the coffers of western plastics is completely different than the source of the money that goes into the coffers of i t w which is through  but this is this is the specific agreement that was put in place that was negotiated claims by these parties and at the end of the day when you go to get the contract i don't believe there's anything in their contract that  there's no prohibition against this court considering an alternative basis for affirming that for for affirming the judgment on the basis and the i'm not going to pronounce right the  litigator this case for years fifty depositions forty some depositions ok this is a serious case my time lost both of his arms i'm alleging that they would have my higher duty we had these huge oversized briefs principle mind was because that was the basis of the western plastics motion to dismiss mr plastics had nothing to do with it was we were there just on the night he does you know motion be aware of the transcript from this this did in there was some discussion before you got  inappropriate for the trophy or to do it that it was prejudicial and now it's been fully argued in brief before this court i mean you know hiding it from that she said and the thing i can't just sit there and let it sit there i think it's a red herring and the point that i was going to make is the reason why i was going through the whole thing and  so whole gosh ok all right well on this one issue that just a space race i mean just as you were asking a couple of poignant questions i think this is an important point here you were pointing out to counsel that many of the aspects of the evidence that i'm pointing to about the nature of this relationship is not within the four corners of this agreement evidence that they cannot refute like the monetary quitman like the sharing of costs like the overtime that's not here and i go back to your mom or decision which you reverse summary judgment on the trial court because the ball of the conduct of the actors wasn't reduced whether the terms of the written contract are modif