angle surveys conducted in the years following nine hundred ninety eight and after the year two thousand the district court in this case applied a french form selection clause that was in a construction related surveys after nine hundred ninety eight either fail to disclose or find this defect in a fuel line that eventually caused the fire or fail to ensure that the gospel met the standard that were then a political act two thousand agreement you want it would and i can tell the clerk i don't believe in god i mean the second part of plaintiff's argument here is that the form selection flies devil in holland america's terms and conditions which were conveyed t conditions why do we need to get into this big dispute over whether there's a factual issue putting it on our invoices wouldn't be sufficient to put them on notice if the court concluded that it was not insufficient as a matter of law then i would submit to the court that that was a mistake pressed the fact that we have a sample invoice and one claimed email but that's the basis you want to we have we have a ok's the issues about which ultimately this case will revolve don't involve them the construction contract or the construction surveys if they did we'd have a hard on him to say well you shouldn't apply this french  costs because we're dealing with contract problems and what happened in the service back when the vessel was built what our claim involves is defects if you will in the kinds of services that were provided to holland america after nine hundred ninety eight and after two thousand company in france that does the surveys but to a canadian company that arrange for the service and that e mail is not identified it doesn't say when it was sent with a home or under what circumstances or and that's one more question about the influences there having references to their general conditions but there are no invoices going from the plaintiffs to your early test your very ties conducted surveys and again this is the french company the canada and the d n a did not cannot conduct any surveys this vessel was never points out coming from the t v anyway to holland america line in seattle but there are no invoices running in the other direction and the only center that's not even a scintilla of evidence that these general condition below to even support discovery it is correct that the court was asked for discovery i'm not sure exactly on what issues and deny that but i think there has to be some showing of some question the standard of review here which do you measures start with the work requirement that's a good question i remember the recent murphy dealt with one single issue which had to do with the availability of a foreign form every task relating to the surveys and to be carried out for the maintenance of class in particular in the event of grounding or damage and of the marine branch general conditions given here under and the general conditions of course include the form selection was so  signing a contract for surveys in connection with the classification of the vessel not the construction of the vessel there is no support for the plane noise that we do with two thousand that the judge fletcher asked the question about arbitration in the u k those were actually raised in certify briefs below and they were never the the argument or the idea that maybe there are these other general conditions and we can defeat the form clause by saying well the later general conditions classification contract that we contend flies in which we believe the court correctly applied was the ninety one contract signed by holland america line and that therefore the case should be dismissed in favor of the french form and the court actually there's no forming tonight or the court said in both understands that they were given a full opportunity to develop their record bottom line here is that they don't contend and have never contended that they have a direct  with a six hundred in floyd company based in the united states that is primarily a company that services engines for ships yes farcical engines but also engines produced by other people a purchase order that they submitted in two thousand and two to farcical north america for something that had a reference to their terms and conditions what we say is so what what does that have to do a situation where you know someone is doing a private placements of stock and is basically soliciting customers in the united states but could pop i could say well i only had to alaska and i only had one in things in order first with regard to the issue of whether or not the forty two jurisdiction was raised in our opening speech that in fact it was on a number of occasions page forty six and again on page fifty four and throughout that area that is our justice o'connor mentioned might be valuable to court in assessing whether or not simply putting stream of goods into a stream of commerce was sufficient fact the court as you know said it was not that you have to have to be more in this case there is to or form selection clauses reviewed and over and that's really what's at stake here we're saying we didn't agree to that form selection clause it doesn't have application secondarily we're saying if it does have application you should review which on of abuse of discretion standard and we argue that the court has of the views discretion for two reasons one it didn't follow the roadmap in murphy and second most importantly under bremen sending the case back to france would violate public policy in that it would deny us our right to trial by