work believes applies here where the state the state legislature set up a bar that counties can continue to collect in an exchange is the franchise fees but for a maximum of five trial court interpreted the terminations date of the franchise or the expiration date of the franchise you would be entitled to the additional five years that's correct and that's five years and we believe that's also as comcast pointed out in their grief consistent with the federal law which bars a franchise proprietor from continually carfrae going to jurisdiction if they judge absolutely but we are here basing our argument on a course of conduct and that we believe that trial courts are do not have the authority to override the parties private agreements that are reflected in the course of conduct over the years especially in this case where you have a and corporation are functionally the same thing and that they are just a transfer of governmental authority from from you know one unit of government to another your government in the troposphere leave that would be  logically made the correct decision in applying this to corporations but the court is correct the actual statute does not refer to corporations if the statute doesn't apply to  patient claims can be asserted against parties for the wrong negligence we believe that the record case that part of the problem in this case on the conflicting agreements and such not among the parties or about by a factor contest operations well our response suggest quite simply the operations are basically part and parcel of what this case is about the financial operations in fact if you do not have financial operations or sending out bills  maximum certain percentage the franchise fees are ok we would state that have been paid to the county were wofully paid to the county under continuing course of conduct and that they were rightfully received by the county they created the problem contractually we had a haitian doing person contact with them for many many years we rightfully receive those face so we believe any claim they are making here is basically not supported by the facts and not supported by their conduct over time so if a hear you correctly would you see these is that you believe contest is required to pay you a franchise fee that you would no longer be entitled to if we were the rule that the corporation in fact coupled with the expiration of your franchise agreement you would not be entitled to is that correct if your role in that or the damages that may lead to in a negligence suit would see this is in a contract referring to contract terms with an unlimited but not limited to to the award of the franchise that that a war of the franchise and a continuation of that work of the franchise is exactly what this case is about and exactly what that agreement is about i was just  in the record of this case the course of trying to duck between the parties is we've got a cable television system it's install you haven't renewed the agreement and we continue the franchise agreement use extended where does a course of conduct other than their arise that is pivotal at all to this case contest is also confused because section construction of the statue ramps of the contract and the contract says colluding but not limited to and then it goes through to tell us what kinds of things  arises out of and again as you pointed out you know what the clause says is we but not limited to installation operation maintenance and further inspection for functionality of the system itself not everything that happens in the plant is under the word operation also that we're ration is sandwiched in between the terms going to the lation and your honor saw that this is not negligence we have a mormon decision which tells us if there's a contract out there it's a contract there so we live and die by the mormon ta why what was the reason for leaving six years need to and you correctly pointed out that it provides that these payments will continue even if there's a corporation and so the question is is that the does the counties did the counties resolution i'm less you can tell me that there was some portion of the judgment that was adverse to you and that your cross appeal relates to the act here cross appealed really it was not a cross appeal it is essentially a request for alternate reasons or affirm mean the trial court's judgment now if you want to argue that that's fine but i don't want you to think that we're going to enter a alternative ruling in a judgment is either going to be affirmed for what we deem to be appropriate and it's not going to be based upon what you think it should be  you can do it go do it am there's no dedication of public property there's no overseen there's no regulation all you do or i should say all your client places sillies in the public railway so the new regulatory oversight where the facilities are located however varied and whether or not you care so it relates to the fact that the franchise comcast was able to stick a microwave tower someplace outside of campus hills and was able to direct signal into a camp that builders and did not use your right of way would they still have to pay a franchise the st two weeks of january and since you didn't file the original notice of appeal you have ten days after notice so ten days after notice would be some time in the letter p good faith continue to provide services and pay fees under the extended franchise agreement as extended by the county there is no nothing in the statute  i'm unaware of anyone that bars the county from extending their franchise agreement there isn't anything in the statute that says the counties are adequately can't you see that you can do this then yes there is nothing in the statute that parson extension until you hit the wall of five years parties are allowed to extend agreements since one thousand and eighty eight that have been done by the county and renewal i believe that it would be an extension and not a renewal for the reasons that actually comcast council has pointed out ok that they were negotiating as reflected in the resolutions renewal require you to the signatures you talked about i do not believe that it would be reasonable renewal would take a separate document with the signatures by comcast corporate and the county i believe that the franchise agreement by federal statutes it would be required to extend trannie whether the county passed a resolution