we're hearing only what was really the ultimate issue as it turned out as to whether or not there was a condition received to be purchased contra well just like or as a counsel how do you separate the two if your argument is whether or not there was a turn agreement to trade in the b m w work conditions for sufficient information of the contract to purchase and that opinion goes on and it says at the very end of that paragraph these and any other corner determining whether there is a contract and i don't want to my own horn here but i think i was probably the first lawyer in illinois represented a car dealer to have an arbitration  agreement and frankly i didn't even think of it and i thought it was a separate document purchase contracts are so big because the deal was that i thought it was important to have another document as it is the case what has developed it makes it easier i think to enforce the arbitration no ok the issue in the first appeal was whether or not the trial for incorrectly by determining whether or not this particular transaction was exempt from the arbitration agreement as the second destroyed first opinion both versions hell that's a call question harbinger ability and not only arbitration agreement but this the first appeal because the court below had limited its opinion to one sentence saying it is this is no operation because it's exempted no hasn't been an issue in this case but to fail or even it's alleged to fail the second arbitration agreement which is supported by the mutual consideration requires that the terminations be made by an arbitrary i wasn't following up and they're so worried this case go off the track so to speak was it the ok well then if the issue is to the two supreme court cases in the seventh district easterbrook said the determination of whether there is a contract is is first and that should be done by a judge arbitration agreements and they didn't deal with the situation we have here were they dealt with whether or not there was a contract it could be subject to  well and that's what the second paragraph if not the first paragraph this is an issue here in the first opinion talk about whether there is a contract whether there is an agreement to arbitra we there's a signed agreement to arbitrate we're not going to dispute that but if it relates to a contract that was signed afterwards and therefore it is that is there a contract  anything i think that's the reason that they get to make their claim because that's the dispute but i'm saying that the parties agreed that there would be submitted to an arbitrator well one let's see there are three parties here a car what you argue to the trial court review and if in fact the record reflects does it not think you stated a number of times that you were there to argue where the court was to determine whether or not there was a condition preceding to the arbitration later when he walked in on monday he said i want my b m w back i'm pay fourteen thousand dollars ok and then they negotiated for a while and came up with what we'll give you a thousand for you troia two thousand because then that makes up the in the fourteen thousand dollars trade in allowance so he wanted to modify the deal not to give him the sea breeze but he wanted to get to be in your bag so you could make more money on the deal right  be you know in violation of something you're relying on federal law none of them i think think that the whole complaint you talked about the contract they read the record but they're not in agreement they're not an appendix to the brief and it would have been helpful to this court since you know the record is not small to have this there so that each judge could see it so w