before they were made to sign a contract which contradicted that disclosure the contract and since picture's worth a thousand words if i could ask the court to try to page thirty four of the says credit at closing question mark they check yes well obviously we're exposing in this context means when the loan funds are described because prior to that time there won't be any long balance against which including your decision to cancel the application then the lock in field will not be refunded to you i think that a reasonable fair reading of this contract is that the only way you get a lock in fee back as opposed to getting a credit if the lender rejects the loan application i was that's a reasonable sensible fair reading of contract but we don't have to rely on linguistic analysis along here because we have the so and then he complained to federal banking regulators and they contract each when they contact each right and they were told basically the same thing our policy is that like enthuse are not refundable unless we reject the loan application case that supports that there's no language in the statue or otherwise it suggests that she will applies to that phase of the transaction and that rule would change mortgage lending in this country entirely because these lock in fees claims that he knew that was untrue when he was allegedly told that he is a bank examiner he has significant information about these matters and he says in his complaint he knew it wasn't the case but not even your honor in knew it was relates to is not that statement because it's not allege that that statement itself is a violation of theola if you look at the issues presented in this case what palin is claiming is that you have to put these two documents side by side and that when you read them side by side they are confusing and six nine six four nine quote the laws apparently settled that misleading oral representations made at the time proper written disclosures do not negate compliance with the law that's a teal a case i can't give you the name of i case but the rights record case exactly what occurred here in other words i believe that the f t c did not want the lenders to be put in a situation where any offhand comment made by a closing agent a secretary and wanted a closing could be deemed to be a violation i'm sorry you're out of us like i am not of your circuit your honor i couldn't find anything in the ninth circuit but all of these cases do rely on the stuff you see staff opinion and the courts appear to be in these other cases very reluctant to allow for example number these are parole evidence side and say are they misleading and confusing when read together and your honor i thought you heard very little about the oral statement because they know that they can't get class certification if you base your decision on an oral assertion to one class member and they have not asserted that as an issue presented in this appeal if you look at the issues presented an appellate brief and i would suggest to the court that there is no question that we're dealing with two different phases of excerpt of record page thirty four which is the law going to agreement there are at least seven or eight references in this is the document that my opponent reviewed with you seven or eight references to the fact that the loan might not close that if the loan fails to close the lock in fee will not be refunded i suggest to the court that there is there's nothing i can think of or that i think anyone could do to make it clear that this is that there is not an assu meaning once or is a credit obligation and the bar was a principal residence is now at risk or is taken as collateral so i would suggest that there is there's absolutely no issue as to inconsistency between the two written documents and and i would ask permission from the court to to brief this issue of the moral disclosures in five or ten pages which again was not addressed by either party because the appellant didn't raise it as a as an