one issue case feel involved a single issue really about the statute of limitations and whether or not it applies the court in its order implied that  that let's suppose we get past that too it's a gift and the question is whether there was without any genuine issue breaches of the representation made to get the gift of the conditions on the gift a guess was made they sent a mistake a fact that was created by your client and that's different it seems to me and then a conditional gift well the distinction here and it's a very important a breach of a condition that the gift was subject to two conditions are different and down with fun and it wasn't and that other money should be substantial money be raised and that they were now aside from whether there's an issue of fact about whether was put in an endowment fund or whether substantial other monies were raised i thought the issue was those were conditions of the gift and the question is is there a genuine issue of fact about whether the gift was conditioned on those two things i will agree with the court that your understanding of the case is the same as mine or of any one of them would cross due to a breach of the condition so the question is what happens if you hand over the money it's like i give you ten thousand dollars if you don't smoke for the next five years but if you smoke cigarette over the next five years you have to give it back that's what i understood that's exactly right so the question is from the time you find out that the person smoked how long do you have to bring a lawsuit to get a money oral obligation there's a two year period to do something about it now what's important that was established by judicial admissions of the foundation is one of the conditions was that mining would be donated by this entertainment industry council by the first quarter of the year two thousand it's important to know that the president of the case is actually even better for women in film than the hypothetical because when you say to someone i'll give you money if you don't smoke but not smoking part of that it's called a legal  in the business of giving away money so in truth they further their own mission by giving away the money they got a benefit they benefited by following their own mission statement in giving the money in the first place i say that representation the problem with the court saying that is this in order to know whether or not it was a misrepresentation there had to be a current fa one i wanted to get to the definition of mistake under for me a lot has to be a mistake about any fact or a past fact so when you talk about something that may or may not happen in the future because the condition is something that there's a moment in time when you market the condition happened or didn't happen that has to trigger a time period to take action the only statute that could apply is preventing surprises through the revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost memories of faded and witnesses and disappeared the theory is that even if one has they just claim i strong public policy to apply the statute of limitations it is indeed a political one more thing that i want to emphasize to the court bringing back the court's concern that with didn't tell something come to the attention of the court which is these arguments made a big point of the fact that she was a big shot at women in film for a long period of time including the year two thousand which was the year in which the failure of the first condition happened in the first quarter she is the president of the foundation that's designed to give money away to the purposes it preferred in my papers which is two years that regards oral obligations like this case we also know that if we were talking in the straight contracts that it's a four year statute of limitations well why would it alleged conditions requires that the two year period of the statute which has no way that you would be applied here to me like you're on the horns of a dilemma here either you're saying this was a conditional gift in which case you got a statute of limitations problem or you're saying there were false statements of fact that induced the gift in which case you've got a problem because the statements were not fact there of future intentions and there's no evidence that those future intentions were not honestly intended at the time well let me take an opportunity to climb because there was no intention to do this i don't know that because what is there in the record that shows there was no intention to raise substantial additional money there was no intention to put it in an environment and there was no intention to get the i don't know million or ten million or whatever well you can you can look at the facts subsequent to the to the guest in order to determine whether nothing intended what they said they did with i don't see that as logical i mean people are constantly intending to do better and they circumstantial evidence well you look later they never did raise actually they raise ten but you say they never did get the ten million or that much money or that's not a real endowment well that's circumstantial evidence that might prevent summary judgment against your side but i don't see how it prevents the other side from getting a trial well i think they don't get the trial because what you have here is a situation where there was frustration of the purpose of the the guest this was made with the purpose of stimulating in the mistake was telling us that they would raise additional funds and that they would create in them in some sort of a state you're you're you're using the word to mean something different from what it ordinarily means that's misrepresentation like you can also be misrepresentations no doubt about that and we played about your misrepresentation or intentional misrepresentation but it's not mistake this think is i give you this  the belief that it's worth fifty cents and actually it's worth fifty thousand dollars i gave you the wrong stamp by mistake that's mistake with a mistake here was i gave you this money because i thought you told me you were going to set up an doesn't prove that they were lying at the time they said they were intending to do them well but if think if the point here was to raise more money and then they don't do anything when they say they don't the ones that i see the number of charity people have high hopes all the supersedes an inference from the more general statute that would conflict with a guy like that you know i can live with that the point that i'm making is that if the legislature intended to subject a guest to the same rules  for it really doesn't stop the statute from running it's when you sue that stuff just after well that's that's right but still it was still inside inside the three year period of saying it begins running when you ask and you refuse ask for the money back  rescind that's what happened here with things like what little time run from when the condition was broken it was august of two thousand i think you're saying the condition was broken right from the get go or you know well the condition was broken before we asked prostration a purpose and i don't understand why you're using contract words and in a gift context thinking well i i'm not sure what other language we can use with brought up with that kind of language and how we suddenly shift to a remember that girl back when you were college here i have and you say oh my gosh i had no idea and now you're too well for child support let me give you fifty thousand dollars and i was lying the whole time and that's a fraud hotly induced gift i have to give the fifty thousand dollars back and but you're trying to apply the concept of approximately induced gift to statements will put it in  will raise other money will get the million dollars and it seems to me that the only way it could fit in the box you're trying to put it is if they knew from the get go that was just a lot of big talk if you get one hundred thousand dollars and right away what they planned it was just spend one hundred thousand dollars on the ordinary operating expenses of women in film or on good things for the people that ran women in film or something like that well certainly at t when when the purpose is frustrated just like an early sex doesn't make sense to me i give my supposed my daughter's going with a boy i don't like and i give her five thousand dollars to go on a grand tour of europe in the hopes that you'll forget the point my purpose is to get her to forget the boy he gets his own five thousand dollars and goes to europe and keep her company the whole time my purpose is frustrated but i can't get my five grand back when he should be able to us and he should be able to  facts one of the key issues is the frustration of purpose and that's what happened here and i don't think we need to focus on the elements of a contract action because gifts are different back but if we don't stop the three elements of a contract action then we have to focus on the elements of a perspiration of purpose and that's what you have that you have there you have it here restitution but the mistake that they're referring to is explained earlier in the paragraph as one in the inducement the gift the gift has to be introduced by fraud material representation or mistake is that we should not create a doesn't say the frustration of the donors of purpose independently of fraud misrepresentation or mistake is to a basic fact when the gift was given requires restitution of the gift now it says just what it says and what i'm suggesting is that that statement is broad enough to cover the situation we have here what it means is if there was not fraud material misrepresentation or mistake when the gift was made but disappears in the last half of the sentence without the first half of the sentence that's your problem well