are the judge said that there was no decision made in new jersey and quite frankly that can't possible be there was no decision may new jersey of course there was a decision because she then cites to the decision to tell rather japanned the decision to eventually the warranty if there was decisions made i believe the interpretation is that there was nothing that would violate the new jersey consumer product talent and your dog and why we have to  section one forty eight to however treated every single one of the contacts as equal not waiting as instructed and as such did not give proper credit to factor c which is where the product heard this is a case where the entire fraud occurred beginning to end in bridgewater new jersey with the decision not to reveal information about a tiriel the billion tire fraud entire fraud nothing that mr scherer ixil when he bought this machine in south carolina at office depot is that issue in this law upon such concealment suppression or omission in connection with the sale in this case the material facts were two effects which brother was aware of one they were aware of before he purchases machine in two thousand and three and the other they were aware of while he was still buying  two thousand and three and that would be the first effect which affected one hundred percent of their machines of the series he purchased those prods took place in new jersey when they decided not to tell their customers about these facts the second he had the final call in terms of extending a warranties secretly to certain folks at the one year ninety one year warranty came out of japan the decision to extend there were i don't we we disagree though that they matter in this case the fact that the words he was read in the manual i can measure a pair of the machines were designed and manufactured japan is not relevant to the choice of the issue here with the choice of why shoe is where the fraud occurred now rather japan may have also been guilty of a fraud but they're not guilty they're not defended here rather usa is and they are responsible for the us customers they have the obligation under new jersey law it's claim it's not subjective in the sense that brothers own specifications corp for five years or fifty thousand pages this is a sort of situation where there's a machine it's going to wear down everybody knows it going in this is one where the brother itself insisted five years out that is that is that is the claim or that he had to purchase over twenty cartridges within the three years he had the machine because of that he thought you know of course the amount of money at stake is not great which is why it's a consumer product which is also why it should have consider section six if she consider should i mention a decision and the camp casey did in fact itself consider section six when it decided to apply pennsylvania law in that case because the underlying issue there was compensation a national class claim case inherited from doug wilson where there was a allegations that the defendant put a bug in its own software which would cost consumers have to replace it in a few years the judge applied one forty eight to tallied up the factors and said go on next it's not clear what would happen then goes to section six and upon point section six concluded with a consumer prod the underlying concern here is to make sure there's compensation and deterrence and  that's what they're supposed to do in the court did not do that or did not go through section six at all have a core concept of six long considered not where the manual was done but the facts that happened here in this case in terms of what the defendant knew and when and what the  looking at common h two section one forty eight two which talks about the place where the defendant made the false representations as being as important of a contract in a fraud case as where the injury occurred so the factor should not be considered as as colquitt of they're be consideration of which state has a more significant relationship that's the name of the test here it's new jersey because new jersey is the only state here has the significant interest in making sure that it's your jersey corporations don't lie in other states don't mis represent their products don't hide material information we believe these these facts were very very material in fact the part of the a purge defect which they still will never disclose this they make money off this defect because you're crackers last six or seven months instead of one or two one very important concession you heard of from the person today is that there's no dispute about the facts and here's what the court bel what is the basis of the contacts in new jersey you simply are not the district court here wrote a very thorough decision analyzing all of the contacts in new jersey the context in transaction in question there's no relationship to new jersey this case is no different there are two other cases involving samsung which are virtually identical to the facts of this case both involve claims that's the chrysler case and the knox case in both of those cases we have plaintiffs from foreign jurisdictions who came to new jersey looking to sue under the news new jersey consumer product this case is no different the pl  is from south carolina he purchased his printer in south carolina he used this printer in south carolina he what in cartridges in south carolina and when he called his lawyer the class action lawyers to join the lawsuit from south carolina he then through was printer way in south carolina after speaking with counsel so to suggest that new jersey has the most significant relationship we using those we take those facts that and  ace us through the analysis that we're required to take into the restatement the factors that we are to apply for purposes that most factors a b and e of restatement the plaintiff acknowledges all of those factors point to application of the plaintiff's law because the plank of us from south carolina purchased in south carolina and so forth the up some of the other factors like us say are neutral the only factor in dispute here is factor c and that is the place where the representations were made and what the court said its opinion and i counted this in the court stated this four separate times during the opinion that there was no evidence whatsoever in the record to support  claims that there were any admissions of material fact by brother and so what what the plaintiffs are asking this court to do is to make new law under new jersey law with the the state's interest in deterrence supersedes all of all of the other factors and that's simply not the law well that was the conclusion reached by just a void in that opinion but but even that opinion is very distinguishable from from this case in the tell it case there were ten separate class action lawsuits that were service and what the court determined was based upon a very complete factual record that there were no omissions whatsoever that the that any conduct that has been complained of here which  product the facts for a product that was manufactured in japan and a product that that the manufacturer in japan did investigation in japan and developed countermeasures japan and w curtain new jersey was the i see extending warranty protection for its customers and actually implementing countermeasures for its products well let me go back to what i was asking i mean if if we righted opinion on this i mean it's one thing to say look at it through the prism of and yet as your i was very pointed out in the new jersey street court case they went over the substantive section of the it will forty five and section six factors do we  is it accurate to advise the district courts in our circuit that that's what ought to be done we look first the substantive section then section six i think that would be now so would be more complete if if a co are considerations that must be given and in this particular case when the facts are so one sided every single factor every single factor of section two points to the in section six that would because this court to be able to conclude that judge wilson committed an error of law virtually every single case that has come down in from the district court in the like we had nothing for thank you very much mr mr mcnamara and then they sat and waited for brother japan to fix it the problem is they also sold the machines teen united states customers they have an obligation they can't simply sit back and say we surprised her obligation by telling the parent corporation we can the money and then if people c complain ask brother japan to reimburse them that's what brother usa did here that's a violation of the jersey consumer product also you jersey other context include that they didn't just sit by and do nothing the investigation they said pinheads they also were the first the also the brother subsidiary that tested the ink purge fix when it came up and they found that there was a difference of about twenty nine pages as a result of the two different perch  answer unplug the machine and call brother what he didn't say yes by the way we have a defect which is our number one quality issue a catastrophic quality issue a defect rate so high they won't even let us put it in public and we know about this and we have no idea how to fix it yet distinguishes this from the project misrepresentation and if you look at the lot of those sites that mr mcdonald referred to were courts have gone the other way those were all those are all misrepresentation cases where there is marking material an issue which