from march we were him until march one of each year the original lease contemplated kashrut to be paid in the summer to six thousand dollars annually betterments out to be about two hundred fifty three dollars keen to the way more and indicated that he needed to pay more rent indeed the evidence was that he offered to pay twenty four thousand dollars additional ram and the landlord said overholt twenty thousand would be fine to the farm is what that second amendment is was increased the rent him about attended even more by thirty six thousand nine hundred ninety two dollars which translates into thirty eight percent over i'm going to speculate now but i think he was looking forward to a longer relationship and so there was a motivation behind what he did and i'm not saying it should be punished for that i'm just saying that when it came time like the baseball player of science an eight year contract with these favorite baseball team he wants the security of knowing where he is and what he's going to pay and i would say that's what the parties are whining did what they did  making an adjustment to prospects the record in this case shows there the parties reached an agreement as it relates to the amount of the rent and manager created a written lease to memorialize what the parties had done virtually and when the release was presented to the ten he would sign and so that's where we have a parting ways between the part the languages of each year that were had would be adjusted taking into account commodity prices and yields so it doesn't see we'll do but entirely new lease it says each year the will be adjusted obviously an essential component to the contract in the in the and the up taishan that was prepared by the firm manager and given to mr foote to sign was a one year leads that is correct now the he simply refused to sign now i see why she usually did he give a reason no we can begin to speculate that he reconsider his mathematical position that would be the to the ladies now what's interesting in her piece one of the issues this court is going to have to wrestle with is what the standard  now in any event i submit to you that the standard of review here isn't really dispositive because when you get to the substance of the case judge a good idea because what being that the original rental agreement had become economically irrelevant by your three in light of the economic volatility that motivated the parties to do what they were doing the first place and so judge again or impose his own conception of what the party insurer might have undertaken rather than confining himself to the implementation of the bargain to which they have mutually committed themselves thus goes on to far as definite as to material surely is the essence of contract law what we have here is these parties bootstrap themselves into a relationship that legally doesn't exist  and i think that the what the court should have done was left them in that position rather than to pick one side or the other edition i don't think that's procedurally before the court but i think to answer your question he got exactly what he bargained for he had a motive for what he did i would suggest to the court did this five year lease represented are the far attempted and far manager because prior to the entry or the arrival of the farm manager there was a somewhat of a longstanding relationship between the farmer in the land and some point the land or so what he decides to do is he decides to draft a five year lease and he decides to have it executed one of the yes years three fourths even begin so we're now at six a half years off and there's some other unusual things about this lease for instance one of the things is that the landlord is going to pay for the fertiliser which is a very unusual relationship something like this split but it does affect other terms of the lease including the cash right so if you are the farmer the farmer in the landlord says i would pay for a fertiliser most of the fertilizer i guess i'm going to pay more cash right because that's an expense that i do not have to absorb well guess what comes out  trial that the farm manager is paid a percentage of the cash right so it's to his financial advantage to be negotiating these types of crimes tracks where he makes certain concessions to the farmer that drives a catcher and he gets a certain percentage of that he acknowledged the trial of that was most unusual i think long term leases are kind of unusual too in the business anytime you have a long term lease there are risks involved in that because things and in response to your question he said it didn't draft a one year lease no he didn't draft a one year lease actually what he did was he drafted in the amendment to the five year lease and that that did it just by agreement the rank and then he had that language you know each year we're going to justice ok so that's actually the second amendment to the five year lease at trial of the testimony of farm manager and when he was on the stand i asked him what benefit i would suggest to counsel i would invite counsel to tell you which part of his prime aphasia case he did not introduce one said so of evidence because i don't think there is because when the court when you look at the court's ruling the court says and i'm quoting the court construes the court reasonably concludes the court firings the court takes notice of the court's  interpretation the testimony demonstrated it's the course of opinion and find he uses that language to talk about the evidence in the case and why he's ruling he's clearly balancing he's weighed the evidence and balancing and is judge the passeng point being that the amendment provided don't benefit the farm manager said again it was cemented good relations or something and i would submit to you that good relations you know is not valid consideration because he had a and then they want to capitalize on their own brands ship to say you know the whole you know you know it's all the baby out with the bathwater because the amendment validate invalidates the fab five year lease everybody agrees that the five year lease is a ways but they create the condition and then they come in the court in the back with the court and they want to benefit by their own draftsmanship and we would submit that you really can't do they have should be able to benefit from that and it's invalid because of that is in death and it's void for indebtedness which is one of the essential terms of a contract a recipe definiteness particularly with regard to the rent that's going to be paid and so i think the book my whole said because judge gannett was asked specifically by me at the trial and the record will reflect this are the judge galley severing the language subject language from the country and the answer was no incorporated to help anyone determine how you do that so it's not so i mean i submit to the court that the parties again i used the term bootstrap a little bit ago they bootstrap themselves into an invalid ninety six thousand dollars each year over a five year period you're woman we didn't hear too they had twenty thousand dollars to them here today at thirty six thousand dollars almost thirty seven so two years into it that