addressing both but the point starting with the specificity versus the general issue i think the record in the cases that the supreme court has addressed where the letter was sent specifically even those instances are we would argue pretty generic because in those cases the records the families that the h away for opposing christie as a matter of course spends essentially what was of one letter to accompany proportional may be made with respect to the it so to finish on that point well we understand that the body the weight of the of the published cases suggests that the supreme court would answer the question by r s are essentially boies on this point if you think that there's enough variance in the records of those cases as well as the contrary outcome of the j p morgan chase to justify getting  is in two directions certainly i think in this context a little more point whether we're dealing with a private versus a public statement because in a in a public statement you would have the effect on the market to be broader rather than in the individually sent letter that the public doesn't see we're still bidding you would expect other members of the public who typically show up to bid on these things and the sales would respond more report aired including that you have to have a low price in order to set aside a sale based on fraud oppression and the supreme court has been clear that you cannot set aside a sale just based on the insufficiency of the price without at least foreclosure sale but it should be considered together and this is the part i really like to focus in on and i think often gets misquoted so again going back to the quotation it should be considered together with any alleged irregularities in the sales process to determine whether the sale was affected by fraud unfairness form pression the reason i think that that language is so important is that not only is binding but it speaks to the court questions of mr stern earlier regarding generic versus specific i would suggest that the way the association argues that point is slightly different here we are dealing with whether or not the alleged irregularity is part of the sales process and it needs to be if it's going to be something that rises to the level of fraud unfairness repression such that it could set aside the sale and so what that means is this is this court should be asking itself or c c r provisions drafted or application of the facts in this case and the court's ruling in shouting so even in the event that this course not convinced that the supreme court intended to limit the type of irregularities that could ri simply affirm the district court's order and the next point i would like to make comes from the c c r themselves the only the only ability the bank would have to convince someone that c centers are unfair were to suggest that the only provision why don't i don't necessarily think a letter would show that either i don't think that the bank can i think i am i have thought about that question your honor and i literally cannot come up with an example of something in association is ever done in any of these cases that actually result in with back before the the judge may who initially you know made that decision even he did make the distinction that in his mind there were there was sufficient did rise levels the representation in the letter that was sent did rise to the level from oppression fairness we don't have those stats here so even in even if your authors are are not convinced that the irregularity would have to be in the sales process such that c c r visions don't really ever make sense  because of the footnote that was referenced i think that the conclusion has to be here because we don't have that evidence of any nd representation maybe a letter that we're just simply not there in order to be able to justify  and while we understand the point the distinction seems to have mattered in the unpublished decisions and i've read them as well as the court has and understand that it really hasn't been discussed in the end a little way i don't think why the distinction matters in one respect versus another and to be candid i'm not sure that the parties to those cases even breached it and so i think it would be useful for determining what i think this argument has shown to be a numbers