at the bench trial and whether or not there was an agreement reached before getting to that because i don't want to run out of time on that very important issue in terms of what p that was and we have to be careful that what you're representing here today is supported by the record because just understanding what occurred during the of the recess we only have evidence of that through the of what was recit so and i'm not sure that you have said anything beyond what's contained in those but please confine it to that so in terms of what happened during the recess the record supports that the alums were present during these discussions and there were representations made in open court when the court went back on the record that related to what the agreement blog correct yes what you were telling us was maybe what was contained in the affidavit what was represented to the court by all of the attorneys at that point attorneys for  three of their claim and the five thousand dollars would include attorney's fees resetting and stakes and it was inclusive i believe that is a summary of the agreement confirm the terms of that agreement is that right he did yes or why is less not binding on the out mentioned the motion herschel reconsideration will file i think the record in those affidavits shows that the attorneys for the allens  did not hear or did not recognize that the agreement was not what they had read to in the intermission between the director her findings and the theory that was put on the record in that case why that is not binding we're asking telling you that there was no media of the minds there was no consideration and well just on the consideration part of it the there were counts of the counter claim that were dismissed so isn't that consideration i think what i'm suggesting is that that would not be enough consideration in this case situation would be thousand dollars and at that point because your titles given to mr so lease there's created a new gap to the east so that only are they losing the trial normally it would be a situation where i would be yes well you know excusable the quack but i don't understand where this concept comes from seems to me it's a dangerous one on top of that why should parties be able to rely upon what was represented by the lawyers or some of the civil case where the judge is this case ma was entered into part mistake and so forth is contained on the ocean reef so i can't tell you whether there is a transcript but i believe there should be the determination of this appeal really comes down to one sentence in the words of mr crocker we would confirm on the allen's behalf that this is an accurate order they were present and we discussed this with them generally speaking under the law who are viewing settlement agreements the settlement agreements because they are binding on the parties they're not as such this appeal should not even exist on its face it's for that reason that i believe the appropriate thing to do is  i don't think that there is a reasonable basis for that and the reason i believe that the face of the civil procedure rules in the illinois supreme court rules and all of the case all that talks about this there's never been an instance where that has been applied and courts have prevented  station or a court activity on the curie that is a binding settlement and to open up the door to allow people to come to this very court and ask that those settlements be overturned is going to lead to a whole host attorney not being on the same page is any of that in the record there's absolutely nothing ok and one other item is there a transcript of the other hearing on the motion of reconsideration i have never seen  in the agreement and sort of go back to the excusable neglect situation even if there was a good faith basis for arguing that that should be what the law on one point is the issue in this particular is there's absolutely nothing in the record that supports that argument from a factual standpoint if you read the record company for nineteen eighteen and then the subsequent order entered by the court there is nothing to support rocker would have told them well this is what settled in seems to be disappear rather different case within ten minutes or fifteen minutes he had returned to the courtroom comply with what you think i think certainly you can make that argument at that point in time but when you go back to the transcript when it was recited on two separate occasions the order really reflected exactly what was was read upon by mr crocker what was the trial court's ultimate ruling are and what i'm getting at here is the court made a ruling that yes and so you would have to take the facts as they are in the record in the way it was favorable to the prevailing wage which i would argue it's my client and you'd have to find that something clearly disputes with that and at this point  asking that that ruling in terms of entering that order and then denying their motion for partial reconsideration be affirmed and we would ask that sentence be entered because there is no been a basis based upon the record in this particular situation if it was just a matter of the warriors being processed here to go back to his office and to really keep the arrangement settlement to the allens but they were right outside we know that because he said so disagree with what you're saying that they would have went outside it maybe they didn't agree with what happened because judge good one during the rest of the agreement actually asked mr brock or i did you speak with your clients about it in he said yes so i disagree with the court that they would be surprised afterwards because mr broke the record that they had already agreed to it ok so finally i want to say in our