your client was the closing had to be accomplished on april thirtieth which was the following monday i believe so there were four business dazed in there but there is in the record a letter to someone other than your client obviously that indicates that as of april eighteenth the seller had extended the there on the other side i don't know who was asking the questions but i have of her but that in any event that she learned some time in april that the closing had been extended is the record clear enough to know whether or thirtieth with that not be material to its defense and harmful to your case because g s action taken five weeks before the closing would be entirely different this case to a large degree is about a failure of communication but i get that i understand that's why i'm trying to understand right i'm not questioning that your client believe april thirty was closing date was scheduled for the twenty fourth and every indication was that it would have to be done by the thirtieth carol sullivan and testified in it in the record that she believed that all of the insurance issues were going to be resolved during that week meaning the week before the thirtieth if in fact she had different information that's not what she communicated to only and the communication issue was the problem because if they had told mr all year for example to your example that don't worry about the thirtieth it's been extended to may thirty first and we're still working on getting the insurance he could then in reliance of said well then why don't i exercise my option to extend the financing agreement but none of that was forthcoming and he made efforts to find that out at the closing they said we don't know if it's going to be rescheduled on the twenty fourth mr wrist was spoken to we've got to do so that would not be i mean obviously if they knew they had then yes i would be a distraction we were not being we were not approved he had rights under the purchase and sale agreement with the lair oh yes to request an extension of closing did he confronted with the action make any effort to try to get an extension the night before he went out and s alternate financing he absolutely did and it's clear from the record that the people from valero were there on the twenty fourth to close and they were surprised as anybody else that the closing didn't happen could close the punters hard money alone so they could sign off on that on that sale he asked specifically if he could get an extension from  not satisfy the one condition just consent there was a condition of insurance and that was the condition in the original letter subsequently representations were have g e was going to take care of the insurance and in fact ultimately they went forth and they got insurance through their insurer a cheat and that's why in may and june they were able to close it's a scalar concept and i think that that's where you end up with a trial is that the evidence comes in and this was not a trial was a summary judgment motion the evidence comes in and the court can determine if you are reading this whether what you're going to as submitted in our papers and as reflected in the record on appeal there are no genuine issues of material fact and in fact mr lee basically adopted our factual statement in response to our summary judgment motion  certain core facts here and i think you were you were getting at these facts and some of your questions to mr leask counsel that demonstrate that judgment in favor of g e capital was proper first of all papers to amend his complaint to have just new theory he didn't ask to amend during the hearing and as a result that theory was not even properly before the district court however even under that theory the district ruled the district court ruled that he f to state a proper claim and that he didn't have any evidence to support his claim basically the only thing that happened in that conversation he says he had with miss solomon was that he asked her if he could close his loan early and the record he asked a question a two part question she did not and she answered yes to one of those parts and he submitted that question and her answer as evidence and the fact that he didn't submit her actual testimony is very telling testimony was that the title company called him and said it's cancelled but it will be rescheduled and it's undisputed he said that that that that's what he was told that it would be rescheduled and the title company representative said that that's what she told him he's testified in this is very clear in his that position testimony that as soon as that was canceled he quote unquote quote gave up on g e and didn't want to learn from g e at that point well there were phone did probably didn't leave any messages from the solving so when he states in his declaration and very very early that i left messages and that's all he said assuming that those were from mr tuck he didn't say what he said in those messages he didn't say that and there's no evidence that mr feigel ever called anybody at g e capital at that point  as i said that as soon as he found out that the twenty fourth had been cancelled but that it would be rescheduled he gave up on g e at that point that very same day he met with a new wonder he and anyone else with a contaminated site was going to need this insurance and that there were three requirements to get to get this insurance  letter he says the second paragraph at the bottom barlow bar will need the environmental insurance the antitype has been speaking with you about as well as inclusion in our environmental insurance pool so again he's informed of this condition towards the bottom of the thing that paragraph the results must be acceptable for the site to be included energy capitals environmental insurance policy so again this is the third time that he's told that this is this is an issue and this is a condition that's going to have to be satisfied  conditional closing they were trying to work they were still working on insurance and so as far as everything was structured it looked as if it was all set to go and then just going to the plug on the meeting and doesn't tell  drafted statement they never say i did not know that the terms and conditions have not been satisfied and that is because at least miss mind and i'm playing this are only as well knew that they had been satisfied because she was in constant communication with g e capital throughout the course of april so there are only quote unquote disputed acts my question to you i didn't want to reargue you all this your time is way over but if we were that this was an appropriate for summary judgment would you like to go to mediation i suppose it's possible but i i i think that we're going to be in the same boat in terms of everybody knows what the facts are they're not  made in writing and signed by g e capital and by our i can't imagine how the english language come up with something more explicit saying what ever we said before hand is gone this is now the deal and anything so let me make my question clear anything post that the closing had occurred on the twenty fourth as it did of april as it did with old everybody else and in may and june and in that closing one of the elements was that there was an insurance policy an insurance premium for my client to sign off on in favor of edgy insurance that would have been the writing this satisfied that condition my client went to the closing or was prepared to go to the closing on the twenty fourth to sign just such an agreement well the other elements in the record are as attested to by my opposing counsel that there were ongoing conversations during and i think not it was written conversational signed by your client and g