consider is the fifty a mandate or do we still not know the system enough information the person we deposed was a delivery driver he clearly does not know as much about the relationship between the franchise play we do know from his deposition that corporate representatives came to this store and judged uniforms on all different manner of  was are you assuming that are you know it and he said yes i know that's why they were there i've seen like the paperwork that they fill out when they break yes so this watch liver and fail why does a bit just mean don't tarry at the office don't have a coffee break though so the route of shoot the breeze with the other folks when you're making the sandwiches do it quickly from where does the difference actually based upon restatement seven point zero three of the three statement third agency here on wherein it says a principal is subject to arrest liability to a third party harm by an agent's conduct theory of proceeding on this matter see section three seventeen why it's section three nineteen modifies that by saying one  unable to provide a set of facts that could ever establish a duty even though you asked for an opportunity to file section of a complaint or to make complaint if i may so we're hoping to remain and and discover and possibly a man based on discovery may i also just briefly point out that there is there are additional allegations against the franchisee about the known short and creates a greater risk of bottle accidents and i would say not on the grounds it's not a fact based motion except to the extent that there might be a disagreement about the factual basis underlying that affirmative matter prince of station limitations when the argument is well the discovery rule doesn't apply or does it why didn't you just file me answer and then raise if you don't accept the fair access prove or is awake a motion for summary judgment which is a fact based motion and then we could help it before the think i have to admit that i'm not absolutely clear on the procedure in terms of what happened first but what i believe happened was we had first dismissal we had time to repleat they wanted before they involved complaints or interesting theories like we have here that before i'd say i conclude as a trial court i'm sorry well you know that i've given you multiple minutes well i'm sorry i think it's been my fault but we're here's the other thing i'm you know i'm just we're up here arguing about what might have happened typically in my experience again i'd turn to plate and say well i think when a plane does not see facts and he had two opportunities to do that and if i might say i do recall what happened to the trial level and there were no doubt in our respect he did not request  for some of the some of the stuff if i understand your position what you're saying is what the research isn't true and let's hear a fact based discussion maybe most were summary judgment we're going to resolve this out and we'll find out whether there's any i'll tell you what happened after the trial court dismissed the first the original complaint the trial court you know on its on sat you know if you want to do some discovery to try to come up with some facts that might support was never encouraged to break any rules of the road it was never encouraged to try fast and i think that as plaid the complaint shows basically that he he failed to yield and you know there's nothing illegal or even dangerous for that matter about going for a public parking lot and out an exit that is not you know there's no prohibition on that so the point of my motion and the point of my argument here today is that plaintiff did not and really cannot ever played the existence of an employment agency relationship between jimmy times the corporate entities and chase away or the employee of the franchisee nor can he played in this do you admit they're well pleaded for that if it is a corporate whole policy advertising medium to suggest that there will be freaky fast deliveries and that they will be within fifteen minutes is that or is that nine play and is that or is that not something that you can see and i'm not saying that you control it i with prejudice i didn't say so that means i can't amend in my understanding that means like oh yes yes you know we were trial judge and i you know at some point  here when jimmy johns undertook to deliver sandwiches with auto accidents he came or see a ball and the injury to this person injuries are likely an automobile accident all we're asking is that jimmy jones exercise or mary care which is an issue of fact this gets in front of a jury looks at the contribution statute in terms of any of these defendants or twenty five percent of all not just whether jake sawyer caused this accident showed a jury how rush all right to determine whether the policies of the franchise or in the employment of the franchise deposition are you suggesting that it is or evaluate your complaint of the two six fifteen we may consider the deposition well i think you have been in already under two six fifteen and six nin