it was that the memorandum need not comprehend all the terms of the contract only the essential terms the way you're putting it is a memorandum need not comprehend all the terms of the contract thought there are two different things at terminations and where the contract says either party can terminate on thirty days notice or either party can terminate by paying x dollars terminations the that's what you're talking about there you mean if a contract says will supply you with all of your requirements for gypsum for the next three years that is a statute of frauds contract even though only throwing dispute is the duration and that's in it and then i have trouble with your argument that o'connor didn't have personal knowledge of the deal didn't know what he was talking about that strikes me as irrelevant the question whether there's a memorandum signed by the party to be charged or statement not whether the memorandum is correct so i'm not getting a first base tell me what i'm missing let me try to get you through all three pieces of the home run you needed the essential terms it looked like they were there if i made them start with this california supreme court are stated in the oath in their memo you go to the martin case and then again but then i have even more trouble with your argument when i get a little further in the seaman's case do features seven sixty four sixty five to run over paragraph that starts it is important to remember contract or if you have to go with two darkness of three to put them together to create that then you've got sufficient evidence that supports the oral contract itself in this case if you just got one of those studies all of the you heard the earlier argument i wanted to add to judge fletcher's hypothetical about harm the kind type of harm that comes from a mess of preparation the economic value that's good to see you name and likeness it's the fact that the person who has the right to it has the right to control it and ways he would be able to prove with me that they did not they reached their contract with me so they're not entitled to hold my payment down to the contract price i'm a title for the about this very analogous what happens when you have a leasehold interest and you hold over for money and you hold over if it's an am pm and you decide and you lose your franchise and you have to now the market you have to in intentional violation and now when you under section thirty three forty four so that the that imagine fair market value they don't look at your client's conduct you don't even but i don't know that that justifies the inference that it was worth five thousand dollars a month for a one month old or i'm thinking if i go to sam's warehouse to buy shampoo and the price of one of their drug addict bottles of shampoo is i don't know eight cents and outs that doesn't mean i can say oh well i think throughout this if shampoo then to give me sixteen cents i have to take a whole gallon bottle to get it for for the it's that's an ounce and i'm thinking maybe you have to take a whole three year contract to get it for five thousand a month a little like buying a gigantic bottle of shampoo if we were in that if we were in the