is everybody here and next case was not retained as an architect was required to construction as such but was retained simply as an architect to seal up the plans it has to be his business to make these representations and not on a spot basis of one particular case but he would have to be the bean counter in the old car versus marnell which was a contemporary of the more than that best maybe an exception are of course experts who are simply experts in certifying or representing tease out of these two counts and nuff language to say that you sustain your pleading that you plan adequately plan and intentional misrepresentation or and what i read in the complaint all you do say and let's talk let's take five you do say that he signed in sealed design drawings normally and you used the word knowing that these were prepared by untrained unlicensed and unqualified whatever his name was nick ok yes that seems like the beginning and finally when i get down to with you would i think it what you're suggesting to me is that in spite of whatever your other arguments might be other property are going to understand that that's a separate and distinct argument from the intentional misrepresent whole you know knowing that you see where you're coming from mr stener really do i read your brief what i'm questioning is whether or not you adequately pled what you claim to be a cause of action for intentional misrepresentation third party  say oh here it is paragraph seventeen in the family account michael there for a range they have defended because a stamp the drawings prepared by nec so that the village of mount prospect would believe that the design speculate with the notion that i ceiling he incorporates the work of that contract of that particular drafter and that there develops a principal agent relationship off a stranger acting on behalf of one of the slobs are one of the contractors can be sued under the commercial call by the all chametz owner oakley of the year premises the united airlines case which you seem to be echoing in him saying when you're talking about the leaky rough involved damaged furniture which was very much in the picture as well as walls the question is how much attention do we take to the walls as opposed to the furniture because i think if it damages spring which are then everything else that point is liberated from the baggage of mormons with the walls obviously back all right now from our past experiences that you're capable of doing a good job but that's all i can i ask you a question about some language in your brief which i consider to be central to the issue in this case but that's only mind at the thrust of the case and it again has to do with this intentional false representation claim that they've made you say flat out that since the dismissed complaint  allege damages arising out of intentional false representations ip fraud that count is inapplicable and you go on to find out the five elements that have to be pled citing richmond  were inadequate and i think if you read again if you read paragraph thirty four you can tease that out paragraph thirty four he is it out of step well purposely failed to determine whether they were sufficient again you have to maybe you have to read a paragraph thirty four carefully but you may simply say that there is nothing in this pleading that shows at most it shows incompetence not intentional false representation and yet you cite the no language other than the fact that you don't think paragraph thirty four does and i was just curious as to whether you were relying on a careful reading of the matter with the entire complaint of run up to the initial counts and then counts for five and six clearly there is an allegation that although the allegation may not meet all of the five points that ha met with respect to adequately pleading fraud they do refer to a permit scheme that these people design they designed through at least misrepresent the situation to the village ok so in order to avoid pain have to liberally construed pleas through ok to reach a just result and it's clear that one of the things that he's citing to in his article is that when they put their stamp on it and send it to the  possibility that you could succeed on another property market but they've left open the issue in the case of the crappier the engine and either their airlines right trans are all text or you know when you're reviewing a complaint to determine whether or not that other property has been adequately pled we're do we got was that a question of law that's my first question is this other property issue a question of on rest of the body of the line from why that is something goes wrong with the motor bad straw it's like that more men will step out of that picture because of what you are arguin sufficiency of the motor not the sufficiency of the rest of the airplane so that airplane as far as i learned on the motor is other property and consequently within the  mormon exception ok on the other hand if the plane and with motor are joined together at some point by some middle man and then back middle then sells the life to a customer retailer or whatever then something goes wrong with the motor which the straw is the point more men there is no exception for more men it's of rebuilding the house when the basement could be built without touching the rest of the house even though there are some entry into the foundation which is the fl the soil that you're obviously going to cling to perhaps stuff you know bad bad if it doesn't involve going into the fire but involves simply living underneath then your service is limited to a specific come on you why should we apply the same test as we would apply when you bought the entire building from something they're not  and that's the third party problem because we keep talking about mormon in the context of expectation of the bargain and yet the particular defendants a nice two counts had no relationship whatsoever with mr and cross space and give them enough room for a basement and i don't want to spend a lot of money on it besides my buddy my sundeck to spend any energy at and he spawn beast plants you'd probably charge me five or six thousand priscilla to his license ok and they send it out to the village in the village who looks at it and says well it's got the stamp of an engineering firm on it it must be ok go ahead and two days later the house falls into the question is now whether more takes that away in your prakriti damages or shields an engineering firm in this particular case given this particular claim of behavior by the engineering this is not a track classical engineering firm one case where they're off the problem because of the case law indicating you know that the plants are incorporated cause of action for fraud that would take it out from underneath mormons were properly planned if it were properly but i believe it would remove it from morning but i can't see properly pled to constitute a  that's i still think on of the other property portion of this as well as the fact that my clients could not protect themselves under a warranty or under contract for the damage that was caused to the existing structure of the house which is other property this think there is an area that needs to show from both sides and that is to deal with this third party issue why don't we talk about seven days seven days and seven days