you too i'm sorry zero five dead five one seven five frazier versus the united states from montana not only by way of distance but also it lots of other different ways my clients firmly believe that they've been mistreated by the government and the government handling of this case and  the interpretation their interpretation of the contract language and the representation that were given to them by the government representatives and that the government should not be permitted to hide behind the terms of what we consider to you had no assurance at all now if you had built these improvements that you wouldn't have any actions just given them to the government that's correct it but my client was willing to accept that requirement because as a practical matter was confident that because of the value of the improvements and a new concession or would have to come in and build the same improvements that they could work out some kind of a deal to salvage the value isn't it right but i mean the government could have perhaps to make a new leaves with you all or with somebody else and in the middle of the time they simply weren't allowed to issue an announcement saying there were thinking about showing them so that's pre government decides you don't want to have a food stamp program or zip required to have a food stamp or well john i would argue that under the terms of this agreement the lease that they entered into the kind of place in was on the part so what's the big well what we're talking about is a claim for damages for that period of time from the announcement of the resource management plan the r and b in which the government tell that there was not that contemplation on the part of the government and could the government have been criticized if it had not announced what it was thinking about doing so to give interested  people a chance to come forward to express their views i mean what's we know we often hear complaints about the government doing something in secret and not letting people know what it's going to do here the government said we're thinking of doing this what the right course to follow well your honor i think by promulgating their resource management plan in which the preferred option was to eliminate this marina it's our position that that constituted a repudiation of the contract and the was some kind of grudge against your clients and that they were doing this is a little artifice if you will to hurt them and take away business in the short term even though they eventually planned to renew the lease well your honor that does work and your reasonable basis for doing so and so subsequent events prove that to be correct but there's no there's no searching often sometimes a contract case will hear the assert the allegation and sometimes it's correct sometimes it's not correct that a government officer to use a crude term had it in for the contractor and went out of his or her way to create problems for the contractor and there's no kind of an allegation has focused on a an attempt by the government to sabotage what was considered to be the benefit of the bargain on the part of the contracting party that to enjoy the fruits that of selecting the preferred option of closing the marina rather then doing it in an arbitrary precisely i didn't understand that last part you suggesting that it was an option within the scope of the contract to close the marina all together that that would not have been a breach of the contract you know your honor what was within the scope of the contract was the government's ability to periodic lee a man and review its resource management played but that amendment m involve for example closing the marina right that was not our consideration at all well you didn't write but you know more basically if i have a lease i have a property and i believe to renters from time to time if i give them a five year lease unless i represent to the contrary provide an option to them or what not the assumption is that they're good for five years but after that we'll see now my problem in this case is i'm finding the we'll see default position that is present whenever you have a lease for x period of time not to be countered by anything in this contract or anything that i can see in the record that says but we will keep the place open what do you point to as the country actual basis on which they reasonably relied for the proposition that that lease would be given if not to them then to someone two articles to capital b whine and paragraph to both and not in the languages in the middle of those particular paragraphs stating that but there's no representation to get mike my question is really is there any representation here that says this marina will not be closed for x period of time and that this is at best it seems to me very indirect way of saying that we anticipate that the marina will be will remain open regardless of whether you're the concessionaire or not i'm head struggling to find something that rebuts the natural assumption when you have a lease that determination that lease the person who has the less or has a right to do whatever he or she wants with the property including stopping leasing into any well that the second provision of the contract on which we write believe creates an ambiguity is in and paragraph article for capital d and b and it's on page  access the second sentence that recites upon expiration of the lease term the lease may be reissued renewed to the existing concessionaires for an additional ten years but only after reclamation is utilized the competitive bid process with the word may seems to me to be a red flag cutting the other way well your honor i don't think my client perhaps understood the fine distinction between shell and me but i do think that that term eight could refer to the the following conditions since that the only way that it would not have been awarded to my client was if they did not know that they were not successful and this lease will be completed however there will be no further at least that's really the situation that would put it squarely this context would you have a claim that it well your your honor i think doing well there's no such expression in the least of the right not to renew the lease in the of the water being hazard not just inherent in the government's authority presumably and i think i think there is some language in the lease that it would support i was looking into public health and safety terminations of the lease issue if that's what you're talking about i think that it's going well it says do they do you can terminate the least after the failure of the commission of the co distinction between the two in essence i don't understand myself why the government's announcement not alleged to be in bad faith that it was considering closing the marina why that is not a perfectly legitimate thing for the government to do well your honor i guess first of all i think in your response to your point the government went farther than just say they were considering closing the marine they they said closing the marine it was their preferred option in this resource plan and if you probably read the paper the government is constantly considering closing military bases and other institutions and the issue proposed orders would get very very close in fact they sure closure states court of federal federal claim dismissing the upon complaint now in their high grief the phrases that met that the government had no obligation to renewed their relief and they also have admitted it in their retype brief and today that any new opponent's arguments are contrary to the plain language of the leak under the plain language of belief the government was given the option of renewing the leave and if the government took that course and decided to renew belief it had to first utilize a competitive bid process if the government chose not to do you believe it would not have had to take the course second even if the lease obligated the government at the fraser's have alleged here the government for fill that obligation and the issue with now we have the government how can you say that the government had the option of deciding whether to renew the lease you're referring to the language may either renewing the lease or leasing to a new concessionaire would satisfy the terms that believe and in this case the government satisfied that requirement that they are likely but let's assume their theory of the case is that in effect there was a breach because it is an anticipatory repudiation that injured them let's assume all that is correct and that the issue comes down to whether you had an obligation to either renew the lease or to lease to some third party that's that's their contention and your answer is what our answer is that there is no such obligation under the plain terms of the lease agreement coming back to the latin language that you just focused on and on eighteen that's correct the greenback to the language on eighteen which gives the government the option of renewing the only and only requires the government to have a competitive bid process if it decided to reissue or renew the lease and just in response to the language that concessionaire the frazier's in this case to remove all of their movements on to the concession site at the end of the term of their lease now the only exception to that is the next sentence however the agency will allow the concessionaires to sell their crew to add new you you have your full of five minutes if you need  process of a building program to create new docks that would generate more income from their operations and they had a choice to make with would they be able to convince the government to change their preferred  couldn't get more than a penny more than the cost of removing the improvements because you're obligated i don't think that's correct your honor because i think it a new concession or knowing that if they didn't buy these improvements they'd have to expend considerable would have the opportunity to do that and then would be denied that opportunity from the actions of the government for these reasons we believe there is ambiguity in the provisions of this contract that it was a poorly drafted lease and and there are two susceptible reasonable interpretations and we believe that we would have the facts to support intrinsic evidence and and interpret the contract against the government of the representatives the government as well as timber signings and you have to understand when this lease was initially created our clients were reluctant to even do this because the marina was  in and it was going to take considerable money to put these improvements in place and they wanted assurances from the government that at the end of this ten year lease term that they would either have a chance to renew or they'd have a chance to sell their improvements to a third party and that's what they thought they got and the revisions to the lease which you see