i want to start briefly by looking at the plaintiff's complaint in this clause because i think it's critical to the plaintiff's amended complaint which is the complainant issue alleged three deficiencies it said the notice should ask for more time in was there was an oral agreement that he would have more time to move the structure that have been abandoned on the front of what i pointed out to the ocean with the complaint does not show in what the record did not show the record did not state in the many complaint business state that rare should didn't receive the notice directly from his attorney so he received for any indication that either julian king or or gresham thought that it meant anything other than it is when you think about it how easy would it need for the plaintiff to come in and say i didn't understand that notice it said whoa did you think there was a problem with this notice and he said well it was my opinion that there might be a problem with the notice the trial judge asked him well not to put a bad spin on this but were you keeping this in your hip pocket said yes he said i did not and would not tell the other side that i believe this might be improper movies in a way now this standing alone i don't think mr kale has a duty to step forward but i think they're acting all the while as though this no this is perfectly proper because they're saying who give the food that they knew within ten days we won't move it over to this property yes we agree we will move to this other property fresh it claimed that he was in a meeting several months later where he talked with the group representative in the group representative orly told him look you can have time to move the property we don't hear will will notify you  need an agreement before we ever would do this may mean that we would not be alone in the room with his direction his attorney and both joe careless and charles roxanne we were never apart we stuck to that because we were concerned about what might be said if we were in that room long if we were both together in factories attorney stood up at the in the meeting and said we're in agreement the there were no agreement reached here terms to buy this second course and that's what the meeting is really about it really didn't have anything to do with this house other than the plaintiff testified that he spoke with the dri representative while he was at notice wasn't given exactly the way it should here no question about that but is there an interior breach if there is no prejudice if the party receiving the notice got you know missing at the party receiving notice understood what it meant a little over a year but everything will be completed in the then that will take him eight years right what was going on there were several different contracts in the record i'm not sure there was a lot of testimony three in the before if i remember different reasons but they all related to the same transaction generally yes yes there were different segments of the transaction is  it was the best the testimony shows was the deal since his attorney testified under oath that he received a notice by fact that day of the notice in the he called our direction right away that house that we now a home that was never moved by russia is now on wheels they're stealing our house and there was a test and there was testimony that the right of first refusal part of the consideration was  years now and once again we get a promise it's going to be monday so they're smart enough to go see him when you know there's been permits issued to move his house in your head now and that's that's what the property i'm sorry other parcel there was a lot of talk about how badly they need seventy need taken a long time even get around to making an offer on it so when you said no we're not interested in it get dropped at that into some detail about the letters that had been exchanged after the november seventh notice had been provided and he said no is that the kind of conduct that you would expect from somebody who thought this was an invalid notice and what he's asking for this court to do argument has nothing to do with detrimental royal's of the second point he said he said that there is no testimony from dr raschid or anyone else that we ever thought that this notice the november seventh notice was defective in that is to my mom simply untrue julian can know the attorney for dr rashan at that time knew all along that that november seventh no this was defective in a number of in mailing i think it's very important to point that cell under the right of first refusal with the agreement that governs this entire dispute they must provide fourteen days notice after which this is on the contract after wish dr russian would forfeit all ownership rights in the property and they could divulge it that's a key you forfeit all ownership rights after fourteen days so what is that nov seventh letter say refusal they're supposed to give us advance notice and what they have done is give us notice and this is writing the letter says we intend to properly demolish the home was probably tomorrow because according that number seven pursuant to the final amendment to the contract that provides the data release of two thousand one dated well that's all fine and good and when you look at that final amendment to the contract that the letter fully complies with it's  says this is notice under a contract that no longer exists all these are series effects then we have the actual service he was supposed to be served in person personally served with written notice and that's kind was faxed to his attorney did he know about this letter yes you were not worth contest was it affective on the contrary absolutely not we knew it this wasn't something that we came up with after the fact entire deal forget about that compton demolition we can do a different deal here we're going to find more of your property and when that deal closes we'll give you sixty days beyond the closing date to move your home  let's get together and talk about this now the thing that after the day they sent that letter that the next day they couldn't demotions home of the they're saying that they could have even though they just said listen we're going to renegotiate but to my mind the november seventh letter was notified that point they certainly couldn't say let's forget about promptly demolishing it less talk about a new deal and then turned on the house the next day so i have some serious problems with that meeting didn't go well we have conflicting testimony from two attorneys two officers of the court that cannot be reconciled i think we can all understand the trial  reads reluctance to rule on that issue fact what he did was he ruled on performance under the contract and they did just breach the notice provisions they breached the problem properly and forest hill park drew do all this he kept them up to date on all this now why at the end of that may sixth meeting couldn't they say we're going to circle terrier hostile right now sensitive obligations known as provisions take on an entirely new significance and there's law on both sides of that issue as to whether you can enforce notice provisions and i'd like to point out the case like this where you're talking about the  the jury and this without any notice at all changed the locks or as they were concerned they own the thing boxcar barrel and i guess that's what to me stinks about this case is that they knew that he was trying they knew that you have problems of the forceful way and had to be leveled he had to get some engineering reports he was running into delays but he was moving forward something could have been done all i know is that it wasn't enough for no further questions from him thank you very much days that there was any confusion about this no i didn't hear anything in counsel's argument that there was any confusion about this notice and i come back to was there a he had this person lined up to sign it to move the property if you look at the record all he did was he got an estimate from some mover that said well you know we can move it it's going to take a lot of work you know but it'll be about ten thousand dollars that's the extent of the perforation so now we go from july of two thousand to this agreement signed to november two thousand and three there's been no effort to move this november of two thousand three the notice comes we'll move it within ten days we'll get it taken care of i heard a counselor be willing is making preparations to do it in the spring of zero four well it didn't get moved in the spring of zero four either he didn't get  with this and that doesn't even count the other house they need to have with the testimony showing that he had no right to because his time for moving your house expired so there's a long pattern here that i don't think the plaintiff would like to hear i think even to give the court decides there's some curial breach problem here which i don't think there is i don't think you can decide that when you're no testimony that i was fooled as the  plaintiff i misunderstood as the plaintiff all we got here is the plaintiff who perfectly thought there was a problem with the notice but yet throws the line out and says look we'll move this within ten days and yes we will move it over there and we'll do all these things why would you do that unless you intended them to rely why would you call them up and say i need more time unless you want to durie rely on the fact that it does notice they've gone out then and was effective there really isn't any other issue there and and by the reason the issue of damage is i didn't have time to talk about that i'd like to just say one thing but there was a pretty sure fire on this thing property the testimony was well from the appraiser i e i consider that they have a twenty year old age for purposes of you know life in his house even though he's fifty two years old to build the basement build the foundation good to use this house because if dr rashid did sort of move his house he's got a house only he doesn't have a house in the ground he does not have a house with a basement he doesn't have a house with utilities