just comment that it's i think that the starting point for answering the question posed by this appeal the issue of whether the creditor here auto dealership violated the truth in lending act disclosures that are made under the act provide for the informed use of credit and to assure that there are meaningful disclosures so that consumers will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms contract to its conclusion will have paid two thousand four hundred seventeen dollars more than they would have if they bought the same vehicle and paid half of the problem with that analysis you treat the consumer to compare their alternatives and in order to compare your alternatives you need to be able to know what this transaction is actually costing you as compared to if you bought this car for cash or financed it through some other means  my perspective to congress that you know something other than what they intended i think in acting then it's in and intending to make sure that that certain guidelines were followed and consumers provided certain information they felt these game it is you know if you look at read the money is forming in where it's reflected in not reflected the at the bottom line is it's not reflected in the finance charge in that and that's the the  that disclosure requirement is that consumers should be informed of their alternatives so that they can weigh those and make an informed choice should they be in promise for what it costs the sake the money out and put  manufacturers try to sell their cars and they do so by offering incentives that take the form take two forms usually in the alternative either a cash discount or not a cash discount let me make this clear it's a cash payment by the manufacturer to the dealer or to the customer to offset the cost of the car or the cash payment to the finance company to buy down the rate from the market rate she apparently qualify for both she apparently thinks so why wouldn't they and i don't know if there's a dispute here or not but apparently let's just assume that the dealer did not tell her perhaps she has a state law cause of action for fraud the question is whether she has a federal cause of action under the trees and running after and that's the issue before you and the point of the matter is that she doesn't because this system and it isn't because a finance charge requires four elements a charge paid directly or indirectly by the consumer imposed directly or indirectly by the creditor and down payment is that right if you don't take advantage of the buy down on the finance in the us in other words if you bought the car for cash the ordinary way that the transaction would be documented would be that the manufacturers rebate with the hatable to us the consumer but assign value to the dealer and would therefore reduce the dealer's net selling price to you and let me emphasize it's not selling price that it reduces the gross telling price go for down payment before trading and before many factors rebate remains the same and that's critical here because when we're trying to tease apart what is finance charge from what is selling cost it's important to realize that in the cash transaction the selling cost is absolutely the same from the creditor that is the dealer's point of view it gets its c e o price no matter which way the transaction works and it gets the same sale price  the cash transaction it gets part of that sale price from the manufacturer in the form of the assigned cash rebate in the finance church excuse me in the financing transaction that gets the entire sale price through sale of the resulting real estate retail installment sales high price what we have here is basically  two thousand dollars and then i finance well that's not quite accurate your honor they will give you two thousand dollars in cash if you finance the car with any other method of financing fine tracks so it's not true you got her credit union and her own you oh absolutely absolutely and of course then it would have been the same thing all over again and to come back to justice pain cash and losing the use of that cash that the monetary value of that cash well that you would otherwise be financing and that i think points out the limited nature of the disclosures that tyler requires obviously consumed there are a lot of factors that may influence a consumer's comparison to one transaction with another only some of those are required to be disclosed under it has to be a finance charge to be disclosed here the alternative cost the opportunity cost of using cash rather than financing is not one of those things because it's not a finance charge so we have to look at what is a finance charge and the other question that the court asked that i think is very relevant here is ok so how would you disclose this now my opponent says you disclose that the forgone  see the actual closure that was made now yeah two thousand dollars to the finance charge my opponent says that would bring it up to two thousand four hundred dollars now the amount for me and as you know under tyler has to be the selling price ok that remains the same right ok now total of payments is the addition of finance correct so now the total of payments has to go up by two thousand dollars because we've added two thousand dollars to the finance charge so now it's going to be twenty five well all right i won't argue with you i believe that it would drop the total payments and once you throw off the total payments it will change the amount of the truth which will either which will start if i didn't what we have here is one incentive that can be taken two different ways it's it's like the stewardess offering you coffee to your meals he's and flight attendants these days  on an airline all of them are free but if you choose one you don't get the other now have you incurred eighty charge when you choose coffee that's what plaintiff is saying here allow in the rules of construction under some paragraph is a provision that says the disclosure of a man or a percentage which is greater than the amount of percentage required to be disclosed under this title does not in itself constitute a violation of this not told what your other choices are then you haven't gotten a full disclosure and ultimately that the objective or purpose behind it which we believe was the way this transaction was conducted thank you