convince us that you're correct thank you your hon talks about person or persons does that apply to a corporation a non et role in entity and two under that section section ten did the act on the part of the defendant of knowingly serving minors alcohol when it was foreseeable response would be that  the local chapter knew of party who welcomed chapter know what was going on and that that should be imputed to the national would be no different than let's say where is there a law or any case law that shows then what happens in a local chapter is automatically imputed to the international i mean how does that happen i do not have a case that dresses around this concern and you don't allege that there's policy problems along the theory of principle agent of the local chapter new in the part of the corporation that should be imputed to the national your honor be no dip and say then let's say a look at ford dealership did something improper with the sale of their car may be fraudulent we advertise what that's a an excellent question i think it's important for the following reasons the fraternity know that there would be underage kids there it's against the law to serve underage kids whether it's whether it's a for profit by a restaurant to say that corporation is a person your honor i would say the following putting aside the fact that it's against let us test serve underage kids you're absolutely right the age the age of the victim until my gender balance sex doesn't matter whether someone  civility to me is that what this actually will provide strict liability serve up serve anyone who's going to get it back it might be put in a situation where violence will be done to that person the host not simply provide liquor that might lead to that act or my not lead to that i would i would i don't mean to cut your on the head i would respond that with regards to personally they knew minors were there they served them none the less they knew what was wrong and that that would bring them within the definition of  i just wanted to point out one thing to the panel it should be noted that when the motion judge dismissed plan of stock comp for complaint and granted three or four a language that the judge made a determination not that the complaint was inadequate but that the facts didn't apply to the statute and we believe that the proper thing for this panel to do is to every verse the trial court's dismissing of the complaint and and remanded back what one final question what what should the for terri have done in this case to prevent what occurred that should've been serving liquor to minors and that that would be that would be the the defense an absolute sense if they had served the liquor and yet the events still happened let's say she wasn't intoxicated she leaves the party goes to the home of this person and it's assault that there so long as they did serve liquor that would be you level he was intoxicated but clearly government there was drinking everyone was intoxicated one of the many problems i have with your complaint is that you didn't at this steam wish between the national organization and the universities chapter  or even in your briefs and sanitation of the complaint reveals that all the conduct that you're alleging concerns the actions of the chapter but you're suing the international that could have been addressed and that the complaint could have been amended to conform to the proofs that we want to further that opportunity and based upon your honour's concerns that is clearly a home an amendment that that we would seriously consider in order to fully priced in this case you'll have time for both thank you two points that were product here in my adversaries argument the first is with respect to the role of liquor which your honor just a scar c e o brought up as opposing counsel has now just stated there he would have to impose social host's liability the facts of this case are very straightforward plaintiff went to a party at a house plaintiff trying too much plaintiff got hurt under facts that are far more compelling than the our supreme court has repeatedly recognized the social hosts are not liable for injury to themselves or others by those who become intoxicated on their process their premises excuse me there really is nothing here distinguishes the of the trial judge and personally the transcript itself is very very brief i she found that the facts of this case against psyops line just do not fit within the gender violence act  with respect to the kind of person who participated she's not clear on that so i think you're right those were the arguments well so i think we can look at her holding and say it was pretty much everything that was raised in the motion to  is a natural human being even if the defendant is a person however they would still have to have allegations of personally assisting or encouraging the act of gender violence how do you stop you for a moment to dismiss one of which the person argument and then of course the argument that even if defendant is a person it did not personally assist or encourage the act of gender violence and again those terms are not defined in the statute personally encouraged and it says that when you look to their plain in ordinary meanings as we start out in our brief how being eighteen giving support these are terms of action they are terms of specificity they are not terms of creating a general condition which may or may not lead to an act of gender violence in that regard i would just simply point out his file that the allegations of her complaint aside from the service of liquor to her the amended argument yes that the service of liquor is that personal encouragement or assistance and as your honor recognized during opposing counsel is argument at best the service of liquor perhaps created a condition where this assault on for unfortunately led to this is solved maybe the salt would have taken place at all but he has admitted that absent the service of booker there would be no claim against the fraternity if you have no further questions we did a valid claim against the fraternity but for the fact that they were serving liquor but for the fact that they knew that minors were there but for the fact that in serving minors alcohol that it   we will take this case under advisement