which represented the vehicle to be accident free and in perfect condition but in fact knew that it was severely damaged the vehicle is completely and drivable and is rebuilt severely damaged we don't  specifically the statute says that you cannot proceed in federal court in last quote the amount in controversy or i'm sorry you cannot proceed in federal court if the amount in controversy and i know all claims pending claims that's gets complicated but i would think that your first argument would be that it was a fifty one thousand dollar automobile and the price consisted of  trade in two thousand dollars plus the rest of the borrowed money which adds up to more than fifty thousand dollars here you know that that's exactly right in other words this court need not get into the circuit split on the first question of whether or not all claims include state pendent state claims because in this case the face value of the contract is over a loss tell us how you get above fifty thousand surest on the federal  an revocation it's a contract for the total sell present vehicles fifty two thousand dollars on the face of the retail installment contract and i would point out you know your honor pointed out that there's a trade in for another twenty thousand dollars that gets you up to seventy you don't need that trade in to get over fifty there's also as we've pointed out i think we would be entitled to the interest on the contract but you don't need that either because in this case if you just take or vehicle on the sales tax and the other sort of the total purchase price fully loaded as they used to say was fifty some odd one thousand thousand dollars it was but if there's a down payment of two thousand dollars there's a retail installment loan for the remainder of the money there was also a trade in which added an additional essential she  return on i believe is it a one seventy three in the record and the cash price of equal access or eases as your honor pointed out five fifty one thousand one hundred ninety five dollars where did the payment price of fifty one thousand was that was the entire fifty one thousand dollars paid well so there's there's additional center sales tax for example on top line but was it all a yes some of it was finances i didn't ask that  i don't care whether he found in the street the question is whether he paid i agree i guess yes it's the price was paid so the destroy the reason i mention this is the district court said well you know paid shouldn't include the finance portion did the defendant get the money whether fine absolutely so the defendant got the purchase price of at least fifty thousand dollars correct and i think the inquiry and there regardless of whether or not you call it revocation or rescission or cancellation or whatever they are quite different i mean you know we're dealing in equity and the match and sorry the district judge thought that equity requires the return of whatever benefit you've received so at a minimum you'd have to return the car is so they would be entitled to an offset of yes they'd either return the cuts not talk about what benefit your client received by driving it your position is it's a lemon but in order to do this you'd have to return the car correct all right now the and the district judge was of the view that the car would be even as a lemon would be worth a couple of thousand dollars and that way take you under the fifty thousand tell us why you think that's sure i should just for factual accuracy this was referred to the magistrate for all purposes so why is ok so the short answer is when we do rescission claims we have a set methodology in that we have from diversity it's longstanding and you do not credit any of any of the offset or counter claims or money going back it's just the face value of the contract you seek to unwind revocation you would get under the u c c you would get so much of the price as has been paid plus consequences consequential an incidental damages the district court did not find  it's because of the value of the car going back to the district court found with regard to revocation much as has been how much it's been our position is exactly as your honor has articulated that over fifty thousand bank and yes you still have an obligation to them for this loan sure that's been short trying to revoke the entire we're seeking to unwind the entire thing which includes the loan sure cancel plus the consequential incidental damages which would be for example there were attempts to repair the car that was several thousand dollars there's have it's it here we don't have to  actually at least for its third party financing the amount that was financed if the dealer is aware that it's being financed the amount that's being financed would be an incidental or consequential damages in this case because of the way the transaction is structured i don't the amount remaining on that loan nineteen thousand dollars and change into her new loan to finance this car that she bought but she gave up her she gave up her old car she s it basically rights correct she could have you sold it and it was she worth us she gave up in essence she gave up twenty thousand dollars to get the new car turning in her old car and rolling over the long right but think the rollover should have been conceived would be considered as part of the damages here in any way car i mean would the purchase price of been seven thousand but for her turning over her old car and assuming and and still paying that loan but now as part of the b m w package if you look at the purchase order it does not reflect a reduction for the trade in let me ask you this i mean she didn't just roll over this loan for no nothing i mean what did she get from the car dealer in return for rolling her loan into into this new obligation to get anything from w for that it was just that that was a deal between herself and the bank which is a separate entity i had nothing to do with what the dealer gets the dealer only gets the purchase price of the car now again what we seem to be in was the purchase total purchase price of the total including whatever is used to pay for it was the total purchase price including tax and i don't forget tax receipts including whatever additional equipment was it more than fifty thousand the actual price for the vehicle itself is forty eight five plus and ions to it for fees and licenses and registrations and other items the controversy i mean and so whether your argument prevails in the end or not it's part of the controversy so the the amount in controversy includes all of these issues related to what you factor in what you don't factor in and they're saying that this you know they're on the hook for seventy thousand dollars and they want to undo this and you may be right in the end but that's at this point in trying to decide whether the court can resolve the controversy don't we look at the disputed amount i don't think so under the prevailing case law again we're dealing with limited more and two separate issues here valid limited warranties i stand up and even in a even in a diversity case if you know if you don't decide at the outset you know whether in fact the claim is in excess of the jurisdictional amount and that's what's in controversy the real  that the full value of the contract is not the amount in controversy for revocation but it is for recision tell us tell us how you view it differently you have to look at some of the other cases like doesn't involve a fair question but it doesn't it involves more fifty thousand dollars the question not the answer but the question i disagree we have to take a step at a time i mean first of reviewing whether the rescission claim has a contraband has an amount of controversy worth more than fifty thousand dollars i mean that a ruling in your adversary's favor doesn't preclude you from then moving to dismiss the rescission claim and on that basis count is saying that the matter shouldn't be in federal court but right now the only question is whether that decision claim states in amounting controversy more than fifty thousand dollars you have to  of the treatises on rescission to talk about the need to consider what benefits have already been received and as i said even in rescission if you were to succeed you'd have to give the car back right yes weren't you why is that not appropriately considered as part of the assessing what the the real amount of controversy is help me out so i think the answer is that under federal jurisprudence about how we do rescission we don't count it and that there's no the contract it's just the contract amount and we've cited the cases i wanted to just  the only question i think is whether or not you adopt a radically new rules specific much narrower and harsher to the party seeking to be in federal court specific to magnussen most warranty act claims and i don't think they'll be just about i just very we would basically be suggesting that people who finance expensive cars get to have their warranty claims in federal court and people who purchase more modest car  price cars you know i think you know the answer is where you're seeking to unwind big contracts the amount in controversy is greater you're not making up it's better to be rich just very briefly want to point out my adversary cited to the golden case with regard to revocation goldens been overturned or sensually cabined into nothingness by the sixth circuit in a case called harnden we discussed that a page twenty of the brink of a measurable decent you said goldman so and there's also a quite a quite lengthy and i think persuasive dissent by by judge wood and golden yes thank