made a determination in her own mind that here that the numbers that were on the table or put your value these are guaranteed numbers were too high and sure today i mean on the face of it it's  know six percent for a point three for one point and then dropping to six and then having a range of six point three percent i mean it just doesn't compute basically as i understand your returns so that it jumps to eight hundred thousand dollars in year twelve not to mention the millions in the four for years and how does that square i'm not saying your honor that it's unreasonable to look at these numbers and say they're very high what i'm saying is a court cannot do th but in my first week of law school that if you have a contest you never look at the sufficiency of consideration if i say i will move your lawn for a million dollars the court cannot later say a million dollars was too much you painful after twenty one years of experience doing that and having started out in insurance defense doing complicated coverage work i will tell you that i do not understand this policy and i don't think that north american understands this policy either because when he executives from north american were in the position and i talked to them about that six to eight point three zero forty point hold three or whatever it is k so now if we take your reading on the next page and read these values that was becomes meaningless what we just read because now what you're saying is they're guaranteed guarantee i hope not at sixty five i gree with you your honor certainly the closer i get so that i agree with you even more this gentleman did not understand this type of thing did verily have a high school education if that he did not understand a policy that was clear but he does understand one thing one word and that's guaranteed when you put that word in front of him he understands that and then he gets statements for every year some were consistent with what all right so let's assume the question is does that then mean that that's you want us to just kick it back to the district court now in our contract or go back now and take a look at it and see if in other words what would be the transcript she didn't talk about statute of limitations at all she didn't talk about much of anything other than was it reasonable for him to expect this kind of think that she can make that determination i think that clearly there's a question of fact as to whether or it meant eight hundred thousand dollars any more than you can determine that's what they are things right i think what you can determine is that it's not proper as a matter of law to say what this contract doesn't and that is that he gets eight hundred  thirty three thousand dollars at the end of twelve years i don't think it's fair or reasonable were for a court to take the place of the jury in this regard and just say this is not reasonable and they expect this so we're just going to ignore the policy was denied she didn't know what the insurance company's position was in this case it's much more like a bank account statement or perhaps an investment account statement  with the four hundred in the six hundred thousand for at least the references to it i'm now on he was on notice that there were some dispute as to what his amount was and i believe as of nine hundred ninety six  equitable relief to reform the contract of what he would alleged to be the actual intent just as you would if you had an investment account that you did not want to withdraw because it's on penalty or something like that but you wan jolly the california supreme court and one other cases including the county cases is that at that point when the lower statement comes in the person is a reasonable person in that the higher amount was they were providing and then they actually watched and then they switched around so you could reasonably it seems to me under romana as well it's not clear what they're going to do so all wait and then when i demand payment  if there's still a problem will resolve a thing but how in light of ramana can we are we supposed to protect when the statute started you're talking about applying a discovery rule which is normally part contex but when  it's cause of action has accrued once you once north american declines to pay whatever whether it was in your four or five or six the amount on the schedule that he originally had been promised and  we were entitled to reform the contract based on what is according to the record below are an undisputed clerical error but the contract was not reform a was my concern is can we say can we resolve this issue here at this level or do we have to send it back to the judge toddler to entertain the reformation claim or to make findings with respect and under the record that we have in front of us today reformation under california l ambiguous we had certain guaranteed numbers that were in there that shouldn't have been secure or considered not make a mistake other than relying on insurance companies on documents to tell him what he was going to get at no time  fifty five thousand both sides knew it was only supposed to be five thousand in this case both sides didn't know it was only supposed to be one hundred thousand dollars at the end of twelve or actually thirteen years only the company knew it and they didn't even know it's not that good when it's just in general and the insurance company because if either they stop trying to find the agent when they learn from the computer that this is all he gets that was the end of their