a lease for a building in arlington i want that was used as the post office building there the victim has a lease an issue was  said it's a deal with the contract was never signed by the government represented by the c e o right that's your problem yes well here's here's my view of it i'm sure that's what you want to hear offer all the terms are filled in on the post offices standard form because calderon's says here is the least not a draft lease here is a lease if you agree with the terms sign sum total or the tally the circumstances of the communication of the parties that this was a muppet to make enough of that no no i don't believe it was at all that's the point that it was the terms are all filled deposition was love at first when he was a little confused about the question i believe if you read the whole deposition but he wasn't sure who all he had talked to although we know from taking his calderon's deposition situation but what but he did testify that you know question so you understood that you didn't have the authority to approve or change term answer that's right to it change terms perhaps but he did say in his deposition clearly that once he returned that signed a lease based on his understanding of the communications and his prior experience the authority to modify one of the terms as she says even contrary to what the policy was in headquarters and the lease was to be returned to her  she had much more implied authority than any of the people in those cases where the court found he was invited for and also the white case of i'm pronouncing that correctly you know it's not just a question of having an  implication the person on the other side has to not have an affirmative belief to the contrary here he said he knew he not have the authority to change or alter the terms of the contract and he altered the terms of contract have the authority to do that she said that's no problem may not have been a problem but that doesn't necessarily mean that there was a binding agreement here the the case is seen to say that if the with changes not material that the contract is still valid and here i don't think it's material because mr newton was always the person the post office big oshie ated whether he was he was the owner he's still the owner only as a trustee rather than then personally but there's a point out that there's nothing in the record that indicates the post office would not have signed the lease or sent him the ways if they had known that the ownership had technically changed fish to fish don't want to rent their post office building they were still talk to mr newton and they still would have signed a lease with him as that isn't it important that the formalities of the formation of the contract should be strictly observed well and what you're saying was there was a green yes yes there wasn't the question i think is what is the real significance of that signature line for the postal service and it seems to me quite frankly that the purpose of that is so the post office can control both ends of the contract they can be the offer or say here are the terms to take them or leave them yet they control the acceptance of the contract by saying well we haven't accepted it as they have the pile they have the upper hand objectively saw that at least in the letter from ms calderon as an offer and he accepted it may that makes a contract maybe he had the upper hand because he had the land well i don't know that he did because that building was built as a post office building and i don't know but didn't record or not at this stage but he was asked in his deposition if he had did attach the trust documents but my point is i don't think that in the context of this negotiation this agreement the debt was a material matter that they still would have case when it came back down to the court of claims and the judge there he inferred quite clearly that a contract specialist would probably have implied authority so i see my time is up if there honor in fact the contracting process and the common law of contracts is designed to ensure that that justice is done as the law in its experience thinks it should be done you mean the formalities need to be strictly observed exactly your honor in fact likely to prevent precisely the sort of instance we have in this case where the postal service did not consent to finalize the contract but nevertheless had been forced to  litigate whether or not it had a binding contract and they did they did lead him down the garden path for quite a while it really didn't make a difference whether it was him versus the trustees so why didn't the post office hold the plug on him at the last minute of the postal service didn't pull the plug on the last minute that this is not material to the summary judgment issue but to provide contacts the postal service in every employee at the postal service to provide a testimony in this matter testified consistently that mr nguyen was given a hard deadline of april fifteenth two thousand and eleven by which to return the sign lease and the paperwork that demonstrated that he had authority to lease the property he failed to do that because he failed to to return the lease timely the postal service had to pay for actions to start closing down that postal service and they taking the property because the lease was going to terminate as of april thirtieth and the holdover fees if they failed to vacate would have been substantial no mr needed denies that he was ever given a hard deadline of april fifteenth and that that is a matter that would have been litigated if in fact there had been if in fact there had been an offer made to mr needin by a government official contracting authority but there wasn't even if mr nene had signed the lease timely manner and returned it to a five april fifteenth there are still wouldn't have been a contract formed because there was no offer made to mr nina and and no government official with contracting authority ever approves belief not only does the draft police have a section expressly intended for the signature of the contracting officer and not just any contracting officer and if kinney it also instructs the landlord that he must return along with the lease the signed lease document evidence of his ability as a lease that property and that if he is a trustee he must also provide evidence of his authority to act on behalf of the trust that those instructions along with the blank signature line should have informed any reasonable person that the postal service wanted the opportunity to review the the terms of the lease and the paperwork underlined that landlord's offer before it decided to commit itself to the contract and ms calderon and  both testified for the that the precise reason that the postal service withhold the signature or one of the reasons is that the contract specialist merely assembles the paperwork and the draft lease and forwards it on to the contracting officer who is the one with the already to decide whether or not the assembled paperwork is sufficient and whether the postal service will in fact execute the lease business cold or because the deal there's some confusion in the record as to whether she said that at his deposition mr nene and said that she said it's a deal actually she said it's no problem that's what she said so maybe she said it's a deal but the fact that  april fifteenth deadline was firm and that if he didn't return the lease by that time he wouldn't that the postal service would not be willing to accept that mr need in return the lease never the last and not long after a few days afterward yes but in the meantime he's still having conversations with calderon between fifteen and twenty actually returned and has been going back and forth on a few points i don't recall whether that's the case stronger but it doesn't matter one way or the other because even if ms polgar on didn't know whether or not her superiors at the district were firm on that deadline she only again she only carries out the orders a person period so perhaps she thought i should continue these negotiations and take someone higher than me decides to extend the deadline she herself didn't have the authority to do so it's undisputed that  between higher levels supervisors at the postal service and the landlord she herself did not have unilateral authority to make contracting decisions and it's turning admitted that he knew that he also admitted that he knew that ms kinney was the one who was responsible for signing off on the lease severed as not only it is not only dictated by the law but it is also perfectly fair that that mr  should have known that he did not have a binding contract with the postal service and for those reasons as well as the ones that force in the lower court's decisions and our brief we respectfully request observed i think as i read the cases in the authorities on contracts you have to look at the entire circumstances you have to look at the manifested intent of the parties and  that's what is really important and not necessarily the technical  loophole or whatever you want to call it that the postal service is trying to use here i wanted to respond to the comment about why the publisher has pulled the plug at the last minute  that of course would be a part of our case if we ever get to trial but the record we do have a shows that is calderon claims that mr newman was given an april fifteenth deadline and she says she got that directly from her supervisor you know hendricks was hendrick's deposition is in the appendix starting at page was able fifteenth deadline why would he send the least effective least ms calderon on april nineteenth or twentieth and why would she accept it so i i think there's a real she's a contract officer she has the express authority if that's the case then implied authority means nothing you never have implied authority that's why these other cases are so scope of authority regarding that contract she filled it out she even dictated one of the terms as she's the one who dealt with mr nina and she's the than the name of the party and if anything i think that's not a material change that mr newton was referring to in his answer  understanding and experience with that signature line is correct that for the postal service to approve any counteroffer mr needed may make that's exactly what happened in that two thousand lea and so with all of that i believe that there is a valid offer and acceptance here that ms calderon had implied authority at least at this point in terms of summary judgment that