children and now i don't know to what extent you've had the good fortune or misfortune as the case may be to appear in this courtroom understanding the various issues of your case and to provide you with the necessary time to feel that you've had your day in court on your oral arguments but keep in mind that we don't read the briefs rather carefully that's not to discourage you from stating the facts we can always use whatever refresher your facts you must but don't assume that you're starting us from scratch entry summary judgment in favor of plaintiff's right horizon i'm both plaintiffs complaint and on river ways counterplay here are three issues that we presented for review today one whether the circuit court erred when it held that under the lease agreement twenty five thousand dollars will be given to the funds to relocate are you know are admitting the obligation to make the hundred twenty five thousand dollars relocation payment totally subjective arbitrary or is there a built in good faith reasonable or whatever other possible ob implying standard controls view that should be mutually satisfactory which is why i ask you how you measure satisfaction is that also a function of good faith is that also can tell you that text really there isn't a standard i believe that it was it in those terms that you have to be reasonable that you have to give than receive pace that can be put out in effect or out of the trial court i think touched on this issue the trial court said well you can just send them to a garage and you can say that's a space and that's not true because we have we the landlord have obligations we have to build out the states give them the same square footage and build the two up to it is least as good as what they have so there's a reason so you have to  property that would reasonably be that would be reasonable he says factory to the tenant and i'm not going to get into does it have to be subjectively or objectively that's something we may have to you have to look at the attorney's fees provision and under the touristas provision of the tenet really have to send this over the defect to give us an opportunity to cure it if we're able to cure within thirty days then there is no future so when you dissatisfaction i'm not saying whether it was reasonable or unreasonable and you know i'm not trying to preempt any of the issues in this case i just want to understand from a technicians perspective from a technical support alternative location on the ground floor which she can reach back in yes your honor but that was that was it that was pursuant to the relocation provision those negotiations you can send notice and then they have a hundred and eighty days for us to reach if they ask actually get contract to say that there there has to be space on the on the ground floor with the trial court has done is a trial court has defined this this implied target of counsel if i may i'd like to keep the issues other things to try to comply with that but what's important here is it's not a snap right you think so ok so you're in the definition of reasonable must so them that it's not unreasonable own lest they have actually  proposition that even though wrong four is nowhere in the least even though the relocation provision well first of all gray sided would not have mutual satisfaction of theirs that's correct or so where we're we're dealing that's true your honor but we so usually satisfactory at any point you know there's one hundred twenty five thousand dollars is two and a half time is the yearly amount of the elites that's a tremendous amount of money they could simply say we want to take the money we're not satisfied there's a would be when the circuit court denied a motion to compel employees to testify about the circumstances surrounding the case the court ultimately said it's an unambiguous term so it that doesn't really matter at this point and we agree with her on the apple we we we disagree on but if there isn't any duty that we should have the right to use these up tell me something ambiguity xina contract which are her resolve a bowl of those extrinsically and there are really there's a conservative area progressive view as to whether the ambiguity can be created extrinsically or whether the ambiguity yes to exist within the four corners but either way the judge resolves that but wh but we think that the only way that you can you can interpret the contract the way in which the trial court did you would have to look to have stringent evidence regarding the a testifying specific specifically your honor that the trial court has said that i'm children like them to be on the second floor while you're on it all depends on what the spaces in the fire marshal makes up terminations the fire marshal has to make that determination what under the ministry rules the fire marshal i understand there's enough to reasonable see the problem a life the way i see just yet when people have to argue what is reasonable we're in trouble people should know  you'll have a couple minutes for republic as the wine bar is concerned he can waive whatever law requirements the law ma'am pose on you being his require i believe the sole permitted use of this lease is that daycare childcare center even needing to get see whether or not there has to be a reasonable mutually satisfactory term the landlord would be obligated to provide substitute space for the least imus's and that is a term directly from the provision itself housing h specifically incorporate the glock brown for ground floor requirement as well as all the rest of the few c f s regulations of which there are regulations which govern everything from the type of fence which needs to be used in the outer layer area to whether or not provision in the relocation well in the relocation provision which says that if the the least the sucky alternative space is substitute space meaning that it can stand in the place in the function of the daycare center at the landlord would be obligated it shall pay for all renovation costs and relocation costs and that actually identifies out that there are two factors here that we're dealing with one is the one of the relocation costs which doesn't require the landlord to be in the fall it simply requires the landlord to satisfy what may be an arbitrary rejection on your part i don't think that rejection would be arbitrary because again focusing on the word substitute not usually satisfactory but substitute that the definition of substitute is i thought it would be useful to look up for purposes of this discussion a person or thing that takes the place or function of another and a space that is not usable meaning it's on the second floor or otherwise in breach of a d c s regulation cannot substitute has as a daycare center it simply can't and that is just reading the plain language of the let's spectra for  your understanding of the lease that you would not be permitted to substitute any founder that if it's total  t is sufficient for your operation of your business in other words could you say well i don't want your mind daycare center to be  identified a situation that unlike here where right horizons on its own has decided that this isn't usually satisfactory and that's why the one hundred twenty five thousand dollars question is in there for example as as your honor suggested if the space was too close to a perceived competitor down under the pretty good system in the brain that's correct and that's why this is a relocation provision and not an early termination so the question here is under which category automatically constitute a breach of lease i would be surprised to say that i can see that but i but i would say is that a such an alternative space that is not on the ground floor or another in some other way violate characterized as a breach of release as opposed to simply being a provision permitting relocation well again if who says they're asked to be a lease they have that provides for fall the lease itself provides for that because if the landlord tendered a relocation notice to space on the second floor were bright horizons to accept that space it would do under police but here he's obligated to give you something which he can see it has to be reasonably satisfactory to both sides robbed of the way you're reading that provision it's relocation provision to offer substitute space for the beast premises and i just keep going back to that because the court doesn't need to look beyond just the plain language of the lease itself and it it's the landlord's interpretation of the lease that would really read into this a provision that doesn't exist by that i mean an early terminations provision which would allow the landlord under its interpretation a unilateral right to choose alternative space that example that we use of the trial court is located on the top but maybe it's the one of the lands of maybe this relocation render that term entirely meaningless and the court and the court and the trial court needs to interpret it interpret this contract in a way that doesn't render other terms meaningless or render render absurd results and again but using that hypothetical if the landlord were to offer space example being all or any fact you know we're bringing back the characterization of one hundred twenty five thousand dollars as liquidated that that's true that that is true and that's again what the a palace argument here in force for a seven point three seventy that allows for exceptions one is through the state fire marshal i believe the chicago fire department well but obviously that doesn't apply in this case or from the d c office itself and in both cases rice is attempting to receive an who contacted both agencies to testify to that and as far as counsel's argument about there being administrative remedy there is nothing in the administrative code that allows for an administrator from eddie it and as the court i believe suggested be permitted to fake some further discovery to ascertain the reliability of that after that the camera didn't actually notice the deposition of but that if it were ambiguous that the court abused its discretion by not allowing discovery and that's not the standard of review the court has wide and considerable discretion to allow or deny discovery and the landlord's brief also of course i think we pointed out in our reply that the trial court actually did allow discovery on intent of the parties and so to say that the court erred or abused its discretion by not allowing any discovery it's somewhat of a misleading statement but again i don't believe that any first of all the trial court there's no abuse of discretion here as far as the discovery issues go but even if the trial court had allowed discovery the result would have been the same only if you take the   we are not going to concern ourselves with the ground floor recall what i think this is a little bit of a side track discussion only because the parties did incorporate a ground f consideration for this low branch with that the landlord was going to use the tenant as an anchor tenant to attract new tenants in fact the landlord stated expressly or the least states expressly that the daycare center that the tenant was going to be used as part of it marketing to get to attract other tenants into the space so and as a condition of that the landlord required be required by horizons to operate as a high quality child care center defined as a that it was at the time it was paying low rent in this case i think the timing is also indicates that the landlord acted in somewhat bad faith here because this was a ten year lease and within less than a year after the piece was executed the family began trying to relocate and you can't get summary that is the obligation to relocate the tenant to substitute space which could be usable as a daycare center in this case the landlord did not do that and was in breach of the what is that the fact that you did not give the landlord sufficient opportunity to there's nothing specific about how they notice a sense and i've seen contracts i'm sure the court has as well that when a written notice propitious is scary sometimes they're very very specific about timing and the type of transmission there's nothing in here about that so it's certainly reasonable and it makes of what what they did they say they offer substitute space and what the trial court has done is is is is read that to mean that the landlord has agreed to all of the promises that the ted it has made here what we're concerned with is not only the effect it has on this case but the effect it has a commercial leases and in general let me ask you this let's assume that you were quite aware and i agreement that there was a ground floor regulation you didn't know that's in the ok in the record yeah which may very well be the case at least as far as workers baf that the regulation floor location it one of our buildings which may be commercially reasonable for ask because we that maybe i'm space it's not that we bargained for if it's something that they never raised which is which is clear and force you say that if we had the benefit of part of it that we can move them to substitute space since it put that in there they cannot now come back and say that was part of your honor thank you very much we ask that you actually reverse the