signatories to the subject letter agreement are identical they are dated the same date they are signed by the same people the only difference is the handbook any time and you've got to sign an acknowledged that so i don't know our employer can divorce itself in say that oh no we have bound by this document and again if the employer is not arbitration agreement and the abba tradition agreement is exactly like the arbitration agreement in this case it's a standalone arbitration agreement but it has one additional sentence and the additional sentence says and the employer can cancel this agreement prospectively at any time and i struggle with the notion that got agreement would be deemed illusory right because he would it would still bind the employer as to anything that happened up to the time of cancellation your honor we cite numerous cases and i think my sister even acknowledges that we have a employer may modify at any time a ration agreement that it's not enforceable so it doesn't matter whether when they do it or if they ever do it because it's just then you don't have an forcible agreement it doesn't matter whether you do a retroactive view not if you don't have an agreement that you can enforce well that's true but those cases almost without exception maybe without exception those cases are all cases w mutuality of obligation but it's better seen in the context of really conference consideration and when you when you look at this issue was raised for the first time in a reply brief by the plaintiff in contracts and that is not the law of the state of florida so that simply can't mean that it is for quired in every case when you look at the root out in cases that do a sas analyze these two elements they take the very same facts that a ministration takes a more modern approach that's more in line with what suggested in court on contracts and that case it actually says bilateral contracts require mutuality of obligation which makes sense but unilateral contract simply cannot and that is any kind of a contract that you make with an at will employee because of the very nature of the at will employment relationship is that it can be changed any time let's talk a little bit about the prospect of hearses retrospect i'm hoping to change that here today thank you judge so i appreciate that if you assume that way plaintiff is saying is true the the employee handbook has this reservation of race cars  work rules or benefits stated in the scam book or any other document except for the policy that will implement so it doesn't actually say at any time and i believe the latter agreement is the same in that regard it doesn't say at any time and i don't think the absence consideration for the agreement to arbitrate we have an agreement to arbitrate today any issues that arise today if you're working for me today but nothing in the documents suggest that tomorrow should i fire you or should you quit and i can go back in time and say hey we're not by agreement the language of the hymn book suggests it would be only a prospect of change if any change at all and i don't see that the handbook in the agreement should be run together they were not presented together there's no evidence they should be read together there's multiple cases that i cited in the priests that have a handbook referencing an arbitration agreement or a letter are referencing an arbitration agreement and the documents are not deemed to be read together case to support the proposition that the agreement here it was unconscionable i suppose the baker case does stand for the proposition that if someone if one of the signatories to a contract is  not in a proper state of mind or it does not have the capacity to sign a contract that that could invalidate a contract but the circumstances in baker was so wildly different from what was present here she was being admitted to a rehab facility coming out of the hospital right out of surgery quotes from the case say she was quote pumped up on pills had a brain abnormality as evidenced by two c t scans there was there were multiple attacks in that case but just don't even come close to the facts that here there is no terms of the agreement that plaintiff has cited are i'm usually oppressive the only thing plaintiff relies upon are the circumstances surrounding him being presented with the agreement and his signature thereon and those are simply not sufficient to justify his claim now after the fact that he didn't understand the agreement or didn't intend to sign on to it i mean it's understandable why black letter law says if someone signs something in terms of the circumstances surrounding the signing he was presented with the not given an opportunity to read you were not given an opportunity to consult with counsel before signing it just signed it and get out of here if you also that there was no explanation of the contents of the documents except that in order to could tinubu work here you got assigned this so i would i would say that none of those things are required to prevent unconscionable really however if you look closely at mr britt his affidavit and one point that jumped out to me is it says i was not it was not offered that i could take this home it was not offered that i could have an attorney but when you look at the brief it says he was prevented from doing so those are two very different things and you know he is an at will and so one at will employee does have all the maybe less power than the employer in that they have some power because they can come to work the next day or not so nothing about the facts presented by mr britta suggest that he could not have taken it home or that he could not have said you know what's interesting i'd like to take this to my attorney and have my attorney reviews before i sign it and if there are no facts in the record but i can imagine that he would not deny that opportunity to do so if he chose to do so counsel just one housekeeping matter it's a small thing but it's important to me that you made reference to both corben and the restatement and because this case in the previous case were not consolidated for purposes of appeal for very good reason i have lost track about what has been cited in which brief so if you did not cite those to those treatises in  case would you please file a twenty eight day letter with us with just the citations i know that the other side did cite to corbin i'm just not sure if it was exactly the same provision we don't need any argument we just need the citations and as as you know typically rule twenty ha filings are for late breaking authorities i don't think either of those qualify as late breaking but your your explanation was that this was an issue raised in in the reply brief  so if you would do that and same with the other side if if there is a relevant provision if you think she's citing the wrong provision you can file in twenty eight pages letting us know which citation now if you didn't file  to prove an agreement is a precedent is not enough to merely show defend it receive the quote lion's share of the contract benefits in addition equality and bargaining power is not a sufficient reason to hold to arbitration agreements are invalid and i took that going in terms of the formation of this country what is and is not oppressive their argument is that given what happened it is well i mean i think we have beat our which says that if someone is not competent perhaps to sign an agreement is suffering from health advocate health problems that prevent them from fully understanding the agreement and that  might suffice neither one of those circumstances as thank you livery the words are a promise are a loser e if they are conditional on some factor event that was wooly under the promise was control and bring it about is left willing to promise is own will and discretion such that the word  again like the bigger case they presented that way on purpose they're presented like they just signed this this is like jack to sign this is routine we're just going to get this done it's all kind of informal no effort made to make them understand big or case of the woman in a nursing home i submit that it has the elements of something that we don't want to see when people are waving their right to a jury trial for instance discovery on that that's how we discovered the handbook and brittle when we didn't have it producing kind of regs we asked what that page three was what this code of conduct was and i my recollection is we were we were able to obtain