judge ordered special briefing on the issue heard argument on both sides had full opportunity to present their positions the judge decided that he was not going to rely on the suggestion that was there was waiver of this issue  into the florida statute the legislature or the courts that one point i believe in ten restatement had been out there for thirty years taking this position and the court noted that the legislature had plenty of opportunity to amend the statute if it meant to adopt that rule it hadn't and the court went about to do it for them second test is does the florida have an interest in enforcing its law in this case the district court said no yes i think the district  of that if you was wrong first we're dealing with a florida corporation doing business in florida all of the face to face negotiations took place in florida in orlando all of the communications through the corporation were sent were lando and the key communications were still well i don't know what happened the record stops in two thousand and one right a lot of common things went well the record he lost his business in september at the end of august ninety nine when the contract with abilene ran out and then in may two thousand and one experience says we're absolutely not doing business with you and nobody who does business with us this doing business with you and that's where this record got the damages we don't know what happened after that but let me ask you the plaintiff's first claim in this case breach of oral contract the district courts that there isn't one and there isn't one because they didn't agree on all the material terms and be relying primarily a mistress in this testimony you never response on the third question and i were just far as interested in forcing its was greater than california's in this case florida's interest is in protecting its citizens under its statute of frauds from what florida court considers to be exception to the statute of frauds the couple of cases where the intermediate courts have recognized that are those cases where the district court seized on this language recall where that the district courts the courts of appeal say well you're trying to use and they did how did that worsen kind of situation even though the cold collapsed at the end at the very end just as planned it was about to lose its contract with happily and he had nowhere else to go good that worsen his situation absolutely does not want to do business with this man he's been stealing business from them as they see that stealing business from them taking customers that they want to sell to they want him out of their hair and i tell sense very clearly if the promises performance was requested at the time the promise or made the promise and that performance was bargained for the dock and isn't applicable why is that breached by firing me before the end of the term i don't type of those options by promissory estoppel among other things he says i thought looking for other work this court said if that were enough then the detrimental reliance provision the detrimental reliance because they your client really had no other choice you you heard his argument what's your response he's wrong ok but why there wasn't there was an oral agreement in principle and i think in principle because i don't want to i don't want the court to believe this was some sort of loose negotiation or just preparatory work this was more than the now with the parties were taking steps to the final consummation a deal it was an agreement in principle there was an agreement in structure there was an agreement the price there was a general agreement to the vast majority of the terms and at the end of the day i c of was willing to concede the outstanding issues just for the purposes of making this contract happen that that wasn't that wasn't good enough for her data services which agreement was for two years or four years that's not why i fell apart now criticisms this came up with about four different reasons why king white fell apart and the district court it's presley found that all of those were fault line rail transportation under los angeles and i get the chance to do that and i lost four million dollars in last profit and the court said no no those are expectations and it is you're not going to get these what do you think in this case is yeah we are talking about lost profits but we're talking about lost profits not in terms of speculative expectations but more importantly it's what is the value of this business that will run into the ground  growing exponentially so this is not a situation where we're talking about you know you know i credit me two million dollars in the world is filled with people greedy dreams of what could have been this start having any income whatsoever court indulged in which would establish that well i think what the court what the court did do  that point texas required the flow of damages to stop i said i think that would be true if the judge if the judge would have said that if you said look i'm only going to give you this much damages because you know i don't want when you sold the two businesses you can recover but you can't recover the profit you would have made from the franchise that's not a lot what difference would that make in this case the word was for what one point eight assuming it is reliance on only what what range would the damages fall into zero there is no evidence whatsoever of any reliance damages were allowed or i mean you're still arguing absence of promissory estoppel when you know i'm i'm arguing that the there was never any proper showing of any damages that could be recovered in promissory estoppel there's no promissory estoppel but if there he can get out of pocket losses the advantage he gave up we have no evidence of any of that i'm about fifty two seconds over but i would like to mention one last thing with the court's permission and that is the moderate issue the only time moderate comes into the picture the only time is in two thousand and one i read that there is no evidence that anybody else would talk with mr stevens is only the evidence that we have that nobody else  deal fell apart only because the still soft part and that when it did it in the district courts words the parties had not yet come to agreement for quote material central terms that could be enforced as a