both of those questions yes although the underlying facts in this case are relatively simple they're somewhat important the outcome of this appeal in two thousand and six and westfield ensured time these g p s nada steering assembly units cost somewhere in the range of between ten to twelve thousand dollars and as a result they said this wasn't an option we negotiated we want more money and the farmer refused alternately the dealership agreed to throw in the g p s at no cost to the farm in addition to the g for itself for the obligations of not only the farm in the manufacture but it also sets forth certain obligations for the dealer and in fact the dealer is a signatory to the warranty shortly after the tractor was delivered he went right back to the shell repair orders that were attached to the pleadings show that between april and september of zero six biz tracker was back in the shop parties come to the green as to what they want to buy that the farms were goes out and looks for and according to my clients for my clients suburb or they made an think either party disagrees as to which approach was adopted in illinois i think everyone will agree that it's the product bargain for approach but with the  points on the basis but even if we pushed past that and even if we exact you judge collins finding the fact that it was a single injury integrated and to date and these other items of property the c b radio the antenna all these additional parts and equipment that were stored inside the tractor none none of these came with the tractor none of these were part of the original purchase price but today's neither defined in is provided any explanation or any convincing authority as to how or why these other items of property shouldn't accept this case for more  allow however are they are the predecessor complaints are defective according to the trial judge you nad it's unspecified other property and we can see in talking with the fisa who are far you know will laugh when he said fuel filters and things of that nature but when you change oil on a tractor like this it's like twenty six gallons of oil ratchet tools and you responded are also hundreds of dollars i haven't done an accounting and see really as i look at it just because i expected the question i suppose but i don't want it to happen to know what kind of c v was on there at this point but they can range anywhere from you know hundreds to thousands of dollars as well but i don't think that's the point and i would like to sell all off my roadmap because it did not have time to point this case  complete dismissal where it's contested whether other property was damaged or not appropriate and that's precisely what we have in this case we allege that these items of other property were destroyed and therefore we're out of  paragraph in each complaint indicating that west philly surance pay for certain losses of it's insured but we don't know issues which we feel just both of us as defendants here and there's an overlap of those issues here a few other issues although not spoken about today at all argument by counsel for the plaintiff but that are touched on in the briefs that i believe apply soley to my client with regard warranty issues with regard to the issues of overlap with the the trance state application and the economic loss doctrine i would simply concur with everything that been suggested here by the plaintiffs there has to be some diminished discussion as part and parcel of this the mere fact that there was something else contained within the product that was destroyed along with it does not take it out of the context has been denied her day in court that that justice was not served here we have to remind ourselves there is still a case ending right now plaintiff not only had the opportunity to present six different complaints the original you're not going to be allowed to recover under the theory of tor our position your honor is the value does not matter here it's contained as part and parcel of that product it's the same concept that the supreme court talked about in announcing the trance the decision which fall of mormon and ultimately overruled in part one says eunice said it's the benefit of the bargain it's a single combined product that's fully integrated i think it has to be presumed in this discussion that if something his contention that there were two bargains should be accepted is true and i have no quarrel with the standard all of the facts are deemed admitted for purposes of emotion when you attach exhibits to the complaint as plaintiff did and they attach the purchase or that is now inconsistent with some of those allegations we have one purchase order we have one product they had all of these parts as part of that there was one benefit in one bargain sale and that puts us squarely within an disputed the other issues that the court below correctly determined were the disclaimers and warranties the express and imply and i think a case that you have squarely addresses these issues is one that you statutes of limitations don't run until october of two thousand and eleven so theoretically they could sue in their own for these items of other property you need agreed to between in this particular case i don't think that there is a and i think ultimately the core is that in this particular case no but they did not work close the possibility that these baby were separately departing for work and that they would be that they could be two separate pro we had a round of if your honour's read the allegations were who were sitting in the alternative were saying on the one b n that this tractor was effectively manufactured and the defective manufacture