story does not the judge as we know because what happens at that point is the parties have another meeting and during this meeting they greet that mr dunn is going to help them to a entirely different  the parties agreed to continue to perform or modified the world really didn't go before for april and that's exactly what they do your honor and we know that because all parties agree that's what happened in fact from mr there was two components of the original agreement which is our contention continued into the modified agreement which was the ten thousand dollars per month which it's understood he was paid but to successfully it was not paid and that's what we're seeking to recover in a question of fact because parties can acquiesce to the modification through a course of conduct or words that are consistent with acceptance so obviously the entire time mullin the contrary to his self serving opposition testimony at that time mr mone does not take the position of mr gunn hey tom you know the success feat which we had a part and parcel of the original agreement it wasn't part of the modified under the original to provide services in connection with don's three french proposal which is entirely different than the efforts with regard to the temp which we know will cease in april two thousand and eight the legislation passed congratulations tom this all started with you this all came from you meaning the three percent proposal that he comes to his deposition and in his and he was whining so these are genuine issues of material fact as to who had control and who had direction if most found to be lying and lot of material fact the one instance the jury could draw credibility terminations with with regard to him on a richer issues of the contract i like to address a couple additional issues one of the arguments that the pile he made is that mr dunn is actions did not confer any benefits upon center point because mr d money to the company despite the fact that the employee or engine or result to work hundreds of hours or dozens of hours there is no benefit to the company by the efforts of this guy because the rd party's pain that's just defies logic that the images are mr dunn doesn't have to be the person testifying to the images we have undisputed testimony from two people mr mole testified that the benefit to centrepoint from this was between seven dollars and eight hundred mr ledger i think in my view the step which is all the more reason for the affirmation of the summary judgment entered by judge powers on the st three counts of this case and then the subsequent summary judgment come for which is quantum maryland which was entered by judge rossi i'd like to just go with a little bit of procedural history here this case was file figures who will come he was a state senator he was an associate judge he was an outstanding attorney no one doubts that as a state senator he did tremendous work for joe and will count i took his deposition and i got honest answers about a reasonable successfully or whatever was that is an accident waiting to happen and there's absolutely no question about that but he was paid ten thousand dollars a month to give political advice to the contrary and for a year i  it said that the contract was modified by the words and actions from centrepoint i honed in on that at his deposition and i believe i'm polish as my summary judgment statement of facts said that never happened those were the three words that he used that never happened i think him or it on the outs in my summary judgment motion that there was no man once of the contract because mr d argument in the ground in summary judgment on the st three counts of the complaint there was another count standing for unjust enrichment the judge powers left standing and then i got in as we got into that and erowid at oral argument i just heard him talk about an amendment to the contract and those are totally different fronts it sounds like he's saying there's an issue of fact on count one which was a breach of contract the contract was amended what he did if you move the edge taxon been used in illinois before he came up with some ideas for the way which he said make sure it's as shall so that the general assembly can't take the money away from some other point make sure it's at selby he  offered advice and counsel to centrepoint lobbyist but that's what he was paid ten thousand dollars a month for in just the shit you just this mr leonard was he paid a ten thousand dollars a month and i believe mr munder just said he was paid the ten thousand dollars a month for the three percent agreement which is what i do with him again what did you just send me and so if he was paid ten thousand dollars a month for giving political advice as a retired state senator that's so again our position is just to smear this great out of the box you know why are we here they didn't get the test that's our position we didn't get the t f there is no successfully promised because of that and there was no  amendment to the contract where mr dunn was ever promised he was going to get paid anything more for his idea that he had it the draco telling all crooked a lunch meeting he said why don't you try to use the n fax and use a three percent solution and that vs road savers case state very clearly that whether a contract has been modified is a question of fact and the terms whether it particular term that was part of the prior agreement whether that part becomes part of the modified agreement is likewise a question of fact and that's what the current course struggled with in the cox case they said the court cleared by correcting summary judgment because it's a question of fact as to which provisions went into the modified agreement and we would by at least implicit admission took the position that mr dunn not that wasn't part of our agreement a way forward on the three percent but i've just decided you're not going to get one i wouldn't recommend one form that was his position so those create