regarding goods and services under a thousand dollars and frankly that intrigues me i'm two grounds one of which is really  i think it might be worth some attention letters that well your honor this time it is a contract and i think there is an open question as to whether it would be for goods and services we believe that that would in fact apply i in this case because we have a payment that's beneath one thousand dollars if you're under correctly pointed out u is the agent of the school district so in that case i believe that was to would constitute a service under the under the statute or at least arguably cell so i tho is again the agent of the school district the whole purpose of the lawsuit would be to recover monies that would go to the school district because after all not the school district was the activity that was damaged in this case it was their pumps that were damaged we can't lose track of any money to recover pursuant to a watch you would necessarily have to go in to be a cow that is controlled and approved by the school by the school board and it's owned by the school district because again basically going to do the collecting on it's going to be a little tough to sustain that says the underlying lawsuit i think probably has six or seven or eight or nine is performing a factory service by virtue of funding the owner of the claim in advance and buying the rights to it if an attorney bought those rights that would be oh why couldn't the school board file a claim against the manufacturers of forward of products liability or the failure to perform the contract or affor the fact that the work produced both a copy of the assignment and a copy of the chaconne in response to subpoenas that were issued by the defendant northrop it was produced by way of the school board another  clearly in the board's records and this goes to the whole issue of notice i think the very spirit prints here is that those documents were within the board's custody point back to succumb or two thousand and five at the time meet the check and the and if he had to see in this case is not the board as a whole in its composition were but is simply to someone who isn't even a member or even if he wasn't just one individual member of the indication would be that there is no imputation of how but you're right this is where i raise the point where i said we can fast forward to march of two thousand i know his documents were produced by the board i dr taylor but that the board had notice of the check in march of two thousand and nine because that's when they look for two thousand nine thousand five which raises the question of when there has to be such notices big that there might be some inference that if they had it in in the later period they had it at an earlier period but it but the fact that they simply happened at that later period would not use in other words already filed yet now what bearing with that have on the receipt by the board it are the the knowledge of choir by the board in two thousand filed well i think at that point the board would have had the right if they had an objection if you're talking about what the board could have done of respect to the lawsuit i think they could probably have been or being they certainly were aware of it we know that so that your position would be that they could ratified and any time regardless of intervening ethos and the cardless of time of the do something that is asked to do with it trucked in church agency delegation or delegating it to a private sector but not to the designation of one of its even if dr taylor were he and superintendent agent of the board is see an agent for everything only for stuff that's and the question is whether the the existence of the agency relationship of a general nature of between dr taylor and the board is think your opponents would argue that there is a that that is not a sufficient basis simply the fact that he's an agent to make a difference is that he was an agent for this and you know the superintendent i would agree with you in that argument rather in this instance the superintendent students are clear as to what he can do in fact what he cannot do and if he school court is also with regards to this particular case and your question your honor with regards to that statutory section twenty one twenty one although it's jumping ahead a little bit maybe going a bit off when i'd like to address that if i might  this kind of transaction how many other similar type of transaction are there or is it simply a matter where the drafters were not terribly aware of this kind of sale have you know i believe that he is stating and again you're under so you have to consider what the legislature is protected there is a reason why google legislature the case law and the school code itself is so clear in this particular instance it says the board members cannot bind the board individuals cannot by the board if you want action by the board you want a notice to the board if you want approval of the board if you want the board action you m powers which again the legislature has placed an intent that they want elected board of missions to make these determinations or those discretionary issues there is no subsequent ratification of bill so in other words discretionary right which only the board can do then see or see or read asian you cannot subsequently gratify your actions and again the reason for that is to protect our communities and protect our tax dollars we want to make sure the legislature has built this through the stanchion that only our elected board members ever meeting or making a conclusion as to what's going to go we're left with litigation litigation is an expensive potentially public relations issue first of all and a board to deal with so for this particular reason we don't want someone to be able to cozy up next ward member at a starbucks or case represented with several board members sitting on another board be able to vote on something and someone being able to imply that their vote at another institution implies that was correct the intended legislative intent of the school code is that only the board can sue and be sued the issue for this court is a very basic the or is not  doing nothing and he's also said that the school board should've affirmatively taken up the point of whether the five hundred dollars check should be refunded when nobody asked that the five hundred dollars check the refund would have to get up and do something to show i'm not ratified or whether the initiative has to be taken by the other side i mean i know i was under the never research right but this eerily i am would have thought by the active of eurasia in the case of an i know a good or even by the act of a single school board member or less than the full board in general there is no reason to believe that the school board is going to allow the subsequent rule of an ac sort of massive i p o ratification not only goes against school school code but it raises the question of what is a school board or anybody in this position obligated to do do they have to not only determine what the regime has is that when there was a subpoena issued as the appellant says the board produced the assigned but that's not factually accurate stating the subpoena here was to the board and to the district there is no indication that the board as an organization had notice of the assignment load of the whatever took it off as a gender issue either before or after the fact that the current questions does it matter assigning certain rights to the player to sue but undeniably the school district never had those rights only the school board has those rights so for the school or to stand and say nothing above the sign does not suggest the school board is amending the assignment or adopting the assignment the school list simply standing is standing why it in the face of an assignment that is on  reacted for him and he's trying to cast blame and consequences of that on everybody else but the consequences and the blame on the plaintiff alone and summary judgment was properly  transfer would would you still have a question of ratification but not as much because the water says that by the accepted one of the ways that ratification can be accomplished is is either  exist where principle fails to repudiate and agency action once it has notes and that's an affirmative act and again we already talked about the the acceptance of the benefits of the agents action elected officials and ratification should not apply because these are all elected officials and the one point i want to raise with that is the case what clearly states the ratification applies to municipalit