court made one broader error rather than analyze the circumstances of the case to determine a reasonable temporal limit for this extension clause it instead analyzes the circumstances of the transaction in this case the seventh amendment the trial of course correctly held that the extension clause is indefinite and subject to a reasonable temporal limit as a matter of wall and that's under general principles of government contract law in the absence of a specified time period for performance performance must be rendered within a reasonable time meyer's arguments at thirteen to fifteen of their brief that the trial court should not have applied a reasonable time limitation black mare p r c s decision deadline  is in effect an argument that trying to read into the brokerage agreement to a nonexistent decision deadline from a lease that was signed eleven months after the party signed the brokerage agreement even if such a limitation were legally proper the deadline was actually a dead letter as shown by the landlord extending it by nineteen months meyer's attempt at a negotiation requirement with testimony runs afoul of the plain language of the requirements of the contract and what's the plain language in the the extension clause your honor is breached subsequent to the expiration or terminations of this agreement we will continue to recognize the myer group ltd as our exclusive broker and the procuring cause in accordance with the provisions here off within a reasonable time they didn't look and decide what is the reasonable temporal limit that should apply to this clause what does this clause tell you about what the reasonable limits should be well this is what this reasonable what this what the clause tells us within its placement within the contract is that this is a extension clause within a broker's agreement and there's all sorts of additional you know when this court when this when this type of situation it doesn't have any  guess the premise of your question is that there must be cut off that ninety one new york avenue is cut off and that all the rest of the buildings must be cut off but where is the cut off i mean unless you read in  what the reason it's unreasonable is because the time period that has been granted is six hundred fifty five days ok and then now assess that should have taken place is this is an extension falls what types of time periods are typically applied to these the types of  clauses in the brokerage industry and what are those that's what this court case law says when the federal common law doesn't resolve this issue you're to look at the best of decision and discussion on this topic and the court did not do that what the court d went straight to the issue of is this a reasonable amount of time now we just we disagree with a lot about how the transaction was analyzed except are but getting to your fundamental point of why is that a problem and the answer is because it gets rid of everything else it gets rid of the d c code it gets rid of all the case law that we cited it also gets rid of the expert testimony all of that needs to be considered in advance of applying whatever limits of what will ultimately was chosen you know how many of those reference the d c code apply directly we're not raising the argument here here simply raising it as an indication of the types of limitations that these agreements are typically subject to ninety days is one we've cited volumes of case law that show somewhere in the area of six to twelve months our expert testimony testified in six to twelve months the whole point of our appeal here are is that all of that should have been consider and i'm not asking i'm not saying that the court has to do all that in a vacuum i understand that it has the transaction and it can and it can consider that transaction the circumstances that transaction but it can't ignore the rest of it and that is what happened here it skipped straight to determining whether or not this this specific transaction was done in a reasonable time and it did so based on the specific things  transaction and that really boils down to not much of an inquiry because the dishonorable to read the federal claim to court decision is contemplating a two year window j twenty nine she first starts off circumstances could be a reasonable time period and then she ultimately cuts off one of the ryan cave leases because if with beyond two years so i guess the point is maybe she was using a two year window as the marker for what is a reasonable time right and even if you were you are i don't think that changes i don't think that's what she did but even if she were even if the truck was doing that i don't think that's i don't think that was that wouldn't cure the issue here because even a two year year on her case law no two year our expert testimony six to twelve months to clarify our experts testimony our experts pesta money was is there a situation where parties might agree to a two year extension clause where within this term the term that we just read the meier terms let's assume that parties could agree that we're going to cut this off after twenty four months and our expert properly testified that yes that could happen there are some could the court is to look to the best of decision and modern discussion on this topic and and my are cannot cite a case cannot cite a case where they have where there has been a recovery after this amount of time based upon an extension possible and it's very important to note i believe it's page nineteen of their brief they cite four cases none of those cases an extension false case every sing one of those cases is a recovery based upon a broker who put a lamp put a tenant in a building and to be more about property sales that's the main thrust of some of the cases yes or are there and i think with that goes your honor is there isn't there isn't a lot of kit there isn't a lot of case law on here on this and i think the reason for that is because first of all most extension clauses simply are not drafted some of them happy it does come down to the experts and then we have an expert on one side with twenty nine years of experience in the local area on commercial real estate leasing and then we have another expert knowledge that he's actually not an expert when it comes to commercial real estate thinks well you are the court found that he was an expert in qualified of us need to qualify them but your didn't your experts say what i just said is about the that if he doesn't really regard himself the next with respect to commercial real estate we think yes sure but that's not what we brought him for an expert for we brought him as an expert in these types of agreement and he was qualified as an expert for that purpose and his testimony was was it what kind of agreement is this it's not you know commercial real estate leasing well this relationship it's a it's a brokerage agree yeah i mean a brokerage agreement is it is a purpose room and i don't think that my ex i don't think my experts experts he says you know when he's to be drafted numerous of these agreements that being the case you were looking  i agree with you that it's clear and it clearly omits a term that leads to a reasonable term and i agree that the terms are back why should we let the government change the terms of the contract at this point because the law demands that because the law because there's case law out there that says without a reason there's case law  clause and then look at the expert testimony the d c code and the case law and i would also disagree with you that the case law is not definitive about the times because if it was then then the marker could provide a twenty four month or eighteen month or whatever and they time so you're saying it's on them yes and that's not what the district court correct we argued below that there was no need to engage in a reasonable period of time analysis because the contract language is unambiguous it cannot resort there is no basis to resort to extremes of cabinets as the district court did here so our view your honor is the fact that all parties were going with the dust up in the briefs about whether or not you can claim this is an alternative were related to the seven year lease extension memorialized in the seventh amendment the other three transactions were tiny compared to that very large transaction so the commissions my client were entitled to on those three small spaces are comparatively trivial after we got to the court of federal claims opinion we analyzed is it worth from a cost benefit perspective appealing that our loss on those two small transactions we decide it would cost more  can't go on forever they need it they being the p r c needed to resolve their office space situation by june two thousand and twelve very latest because then their landlord had a unilateral right to terminate their lease and another tenant in the building goodwin proctor did over that may be true the circumstances in your case but i don't i don't know how many other contracts the government has with persons such as yourself that has this exact language so you're asking us to construe this as going on forever there might be circumstances different different from what i said if i hear your honor's question correctly understand it correctly i'm saying it's somewhat different in this particular case that's before this court because all parties including the government agree that the contract extension clause is unambiguous but there's no legal ability or basis to resort to extremes of evidence for it to gauge a reasonable period of time analysis and if there's another case out there or present a different factual and it has to have been included on the list and it was a corrective and short of that there are no limitations i mean everything well is on what i think is a practical matter in the real world of course leasing there is a very real limitation that is they've already solved at least challenge that my client was assisting with that is where they're going to do beginning june twenty twelve they're after they've entered a seven year lease extent and i don't want new york in twenty twenty two or a year or two before when they decide should we stay here or should we explore other options or other commercial office buildings in d c that's a new office space search with respect to which my client will have absolutely no involvement and will not be in a position because he's not there broker to submit for their consideration any property for a lease beginning at twenty twenty two so as a practical matter although they make a big deal about this in perpetuity issue in the region in the real world of commercial leasing there's no possibility that this is going to go on at all because of that the situation i so what if a client is thinking about moving and then you submit various properties and they don't make any decision they don't make any decision for ten years and then ten years later you know now you know the record relationship been terminated for ten years they decide oh yes we should move on let's move now going to move to alexandria and it turns out that alexander property was on ten years later maybe for a different broker land on that same alexandra property that would be the extremely unusual situation but accepting the premise of the hypothetical the answer would be yes if that's what the parties is or sophisticated exclusive broker any scot any rental of any property submitted by my client during the terms of the agreement will be subject to his right to a commission so the answer would be yes unambiguous we agree with that and a lot of that we think there's absolutely no basis to resort to experience or governance or engage in a reasonable period of time limitation i'm just looking for paid to go crazy when you say court held and we do not challenge this is that the court is referred to as a reference to good ones quote that miers extension clause was unambiguous so the knowledge if i read this correctly that we do not challenge that miers extension clause was question earlier to mr hoffman i think it's quite clear that good williams determinations as to whether these two transactions at issue one appeal occurred within a reasonable period of time following terminations that would be reviewed for clear air those were factual findings and sheep refer specifically to her finding that these transactions occurred within a preschool period of time there is ample record evidence to support those factual findings by judge williams there's no basis at all to  a building that has space for lease that building is now submitted these are not submittals these are not proposals these are not least terms these aren't allies these are this is the barest connection with the building and that is the problem with this chart is that you have a especially around yes they can if you look at j look at j thirteen twenty seven this is dated january fourteenth two thousand and ten this is a market survey and financial analysis respect to the six month with a one year cut off that you're arguing for here so it's a little odd to me that you're complaining about how wrought this is well know you could conceive concerns you are raising with that would apply know just like two years right well no your honor i think that i think that the breadth of of the minimal of interaction that's necessary goes to how long a term you get you don't get you don't get a two year term or in this case forever when all you have to do is submit a list of properties and that's my point in distinguishing all the case law and i would i'm not going to get into it here but it is in my briefs i distinguished all of their cases because in general those are cases with landlords and those are for a very finite periods of time so you have one final point