is starting with this work for over a century as well as helping anyone dealing with a governmental body case the risk of having accurately ascertain mean they still may be liable to the contractors who were sued they had records voluntarily chose not to proceed with their claims against travelers so this point i would suspect that they have lose proposition here either they entered into the contract that they knew at the time or was executed the person's actually could never be away maybe but by the war and they get the money and everything goes straight or they get caught and say he just actually didn't followed but we're still a entitle to compensation anyways in that round you have to really encourage compliance with the statute at all because the contractor knows that no matter what happens they're going to be entitled to remuneration k that should be an incentive for everyone to know what the rules are and to follow the rules why wouldn't why would have put any effort to comply with with the statutes why would ever sign contracts well they  contractors what is served work until it ascertain that the people that were asked to be agreements actually have the authority to do it and i think the policy that's been chosen by the score is when you're dealing with inferior even if it's even ramped up a little bit more you typically involve cases were very strange language in the instruction contract about actress in a way where the public and he would come in and he would approve the contract they would vote on it and then we'll come back later and say oh we've got you now i think a  what is not so much what has a rule been in the past but what should the rule be point forward in a circumstance where a contract for one reason or another just not a valid kinds of improprieties there could conceivably be collusion between contractors and miscible officials resit was just backup system and i just want to understand is the so you're saying it seems like you're in agreement all yes i don't even call it an exception i call it a parallel line of reasoning because although what contracts cannot be enforced the reason they can't be enforced  it they do not want to preclude municipalities from from protecting themselves looking at a parallel line of recovery now one that the legislature look back now looking at what the statute says you must do or must not do in order to have  pretty fair or not the public gets more protection than the average person or entity but the point is in this case the public yes all the protection they need and maybe more if these matters raise all the defenses they want the bird falls upon in this case us to show that there was a request for the work that we did the work in this case that it was reported every step of the way on the way to the to the board of that there's the value of the work the bird falls of upon us to prove all of those things we can't just look at a contract and say we performed it and if this case opposed to trial the board has the opportunity to challenge the beast or any one of those things to show that there was something wrong here if any one of the parade of horribles as they can because it's been raised by the board could possibly exist in this case and there is any evidence any of them do then that will come out in the court the faculty and we will not recover that's what i want to marry with this all of our once was i've not heard the board ever everything and it's going to be up to a court to decide if there's any unfairness at all there's also if there is an opportunity for coverage that the coverage will come into play but the bottom line is we're not talking we were talking we're still not talking about public funds here so all of the things that that they worried about will not be true and in fact we known that assuming the and i'm not sure that this a few cases even if a trial the board would be able to argue look at the resources at fault because they should have checked on these things this was not a normal contracting situation this fire struck in may they every instance on the contractor the vendor of services to check to see if somebody on the in this full side has done what they're supposed to do we don't we don't bring the contract in to the to the board meeting that's done by g compliance with state you if you agree with them you are incentivizing noncompliance because and one of the justices picked up a point that's near the end of my nobody trusts that anybody in the city i mean you can almost read that in those decisions basically that it is in an age of transparency where everything's on television everything's on internet everybody pretty much knows what's going on whatever motivated the ports in those days too t addressed in the white america hearing if something is on tort that's going to come out there isn't any evidence of that here and i don't think i've saw any evidence of that in any of the other cases that we have one small point and that was the no bid argument the involved in wife or juror should not win in this case that's been forfeit that they might have made a different have time because we we would have had to find out what had happened doing the work there is a provision as counsel said that they can send out contracts and approve tactics rubbish called an emergency situation as part of the call for all i know it may be that we would have had that is that that was premised on a line of cases that i stand simply has to be read both ways and i don't see in that case or in the other cases the points made that i just made t or for some reason this concept that the equitable approach is a parallel approach not not overwhelming rebutting undercutting the contract side of the case wasn't made at least the wasn't made that i can see in those opinions know if we look at it from that perspective that the that the protections that justice garment talked about that the public entities are being given are preserved here then there's no reason not to have there's no that case brutally overruled by that because a contractor then you know if they proceed without ascertaining whether there was a story or not and then go on to do a i think there's more than one answer to that one question as to why or why with the municipal unit bothered to approve i mean it's a it's a two player two part answer and why would why would a contractor knowingly ever not proceed in the best way they thought possible why would they ever take the risk it's going to be some issue he if this court accepts our position and trying to think of the best way when you're looking at an equitable position where there's a contract where there's a contractor went to the board and checked with the board have you approved have you internally approved the contract yet we're talking still about a contract this case is not about a crime it's about an equity so this duty on the part of both sides to make sure the contracting process got on should be an argument limited to a contract and applied in fact case we thought we have and i think once you get the equities then you look back on all of that to see if the season to see if something occurred in the contracting process that would make it us i could replace the air conditioning unit once you stall the unit into the building it becomes part of the real property and that leads to what i think is my final point is that a long time ago  allowing even the we've been without a contract what we're really says asking this court to do and replevin although it's a it's a remedy a law it's got equitable principles equitable conditions but we're really suggesting to the court that if you're going to replevin the kind of equitable remedy we're talking about here really expands replevin the real crap that's all you'll be doing that seems not that but the cult thing to do nothing that would shake up