we'll hear argument next in appeal two thousand and eight five zero zero three northrop grumman versus united states promise and in your example he is the warranty language in the contract the specific language in the contract which is that a one fo question did you have any communication in more than a ninety five did you have any communication if you remember in this pre contract in theory with anybody from logic i answer not that i remember by name not that i corporation of an extremist doctor and you gave us the language talks about the information providing you can you give us any example from any court at i'm trying to find out whether the key language in just about three words here is strong enough and clear enough to incorporate by reference the full text of an extremist document and make it a part of a contract in a contract reference then it then the corporates nothing and then you are writing out of the contract so the only leg was put in the contract to protect the contract or it was a loan which you're referring to is so judge lynn correct that it's a central tenant of the contract law in general and particularly federal contract law which is severely cabin by far regulation an extraordinarily detailed and lengthy claim that basically if you want to depend on a term it's got to be in the document not in some other god i don't believe that that's true that's partial of the enlightenment be true why isn't that the only sensible policy that's why you have contracts so everybody knows what their rights are we don't later have people think all i thought it was something else because he told me this two months earlier he sent me a letter three months earlier saying blah blah blah the whole point of having an integrated contract is so you don't later have disputes about who's obligated to do what for the other side that may be true and it would certainly be better to draft contracts with more specificity than this once but sometimes people aren't perfect and that is q a different question in the limited time that we have to be sure that i understand your argument not considered part of the contract then they are entitled to have acted on the cancellation because of the flaws i guess i would say if it is conserved part of a contract which i believe it is and the reason being it's the only way to give effect to the inducement language then there was a factual statement made by the government that was false is a breach of they can see that it integrated and work with the larger battle system into which it was supposed to be made a part no testimony that how could how could they so how could they be warning that it would work they've never seen it well that's exactly my point that made a false who aren't they made a statement well even if you don't have you're asking us perhaps to make a kind of a far fetched interpretation of of the letter of need it why should we interpret the letter of need to in effect as if to say assuming it does what the maker polkas it does it will be a critical part of our panel so this because it it that's the context because they had never seen it never had a chance to try it out didn't know anything about it except oral representations by the salesman of the company seems to me the common sense is that the condition precedent to the statement is that it works as advertised because northrop grumman knows absolutely nothing about that north up this is a classic triangle transaction where the deal is so that the an escape was the records that and they needed some protection they need to be no protection why didn't they bargain with the government and say look you've got to commit for certain time period let's say three years and then you annex it if you are happy but you got to give us million dollars at the beginning and go into a contract that lets you put in the pipe but if you know you really need it then we'll take we'll take the rest and that's all it is that is that is all the warranty ever is that we understand is a mistake to keep repeating  the record and see what affirmation was made about the essential use in the past the money is very clear that there was only one testimony of mr bernstein his that i wrote it i gave it to the government and i said you've got to get this signed otherwise we will data because you do need it with music but they weren't offering a software they're offering a particular thought where and the letter seems to be addressing that particular software and saying yes it is necessary and  right but but it doesn't really mean that it doesn't mean it's the only software gook that could be necessary and it will it doesn't mean that they are that's not the point of contention the other side is arguing that this was the promise by the government that it would work it would be acceptable to the army and that's what qantas letter signified this is what we need this is what we want we want to buy it from you i wouldn't are you disagreeing with that or are you agreeing with that i can't tell where you are as you put it this is what we want is what we need we're buying it for you it's really what was that in the drugs letter i did not say however that it was only going to be what we need of this i think fairly clear statement that we want to deal with you you have what we need but it turns out that it just didn't work what difference does it make whether or not that letter is or we why assume and let's assuming that this letter is integrated into the contract or is a clear statement i'm sure a good deal of preliminary will needs to be done in preparation for performance of this countr i can certainly understand why a contractor would want certain surance is to know that he is dealing on the appropriate level and all the rest of it but i don't see there in much emphasis on clause was because it turned out the software didn't work and the government has no need for software that doesn't work if you look he's basically saying grumman would have never entered into this contract containing the escape clause at all but for the promise of suitability represented by johnson's letter that bernstein of government had requested and which johnson then sent him anthony just signing the language bernstein craft well so so if that was he critical consideration to enter into the bargain at all on the part of common and it turns out to be a false representation document logically what other document could the reference point to other than this johnson letter that that language in the disputed line in the make whether the person signing this particular document had a hard enough only for the first question only to the question about whether or not it was incorporated by reference because it goes to who was involved in the negotiations that would have has ads have to be argument right you need to have it in the contract itself because you have different parties given to jewels who are making these promises of half the government oh are you saying that the