authority to reform the party's contract as part of resolving the party's dispute involving calculation of the first contingent payment and i think there are two issues that illustrate the district cour arriving at that at that conclusion one practical and the other sort of jurisprudential the jurisprudential issue involves the presumption in favor of arbitration and the presumption goes like this that a court is to construe a contractual arbitration grant clause construe it as encompassing arbiter billet unless it can be said with positive assurance that there is no reasonable interpretation no available interpretation that would encompass the the issue and if that presumption in favor of arbitration is to be anything other than a platitude this is a sort of case where it ought to apply because there were a number of instances where the district court the r r and favored milling around the corner if you radiate that wrongly that everything everything is arbitration very well would sweep in every dispute the parties might possibly have but what we have here is a series of specific analyses by the district court taking specific provisions within the engagement letter or within the a p a and assigning weight leaning away from arbitration assigning weight to an inference against arbitration when there is a bailable a reasonable inference in favor of arbitration example and here's another way where the they are in are leaned against the engagement letter says specifically that the arbitrator has the right has the contractual right to retain legal counsel in order to advise him that indicates that the parties contemplated and agreed that the arbitrator would would sometimes possibly face resolution of legal issues as part of the arbitration as a whole they agreed to that the are in our sweat that away said no no  hiring of the of an attorney just goes to the question of waiver over whether lonestar waived the question of arbiter ability and we're not contending that they waived it well it is a reasonable inference that the parties contemplated resolution of legal issues by the arbitrator and yet contrary to the presumption the district court lead the way instead of leaning in favor so that's a specific example in the in the series of forks that a court takes in construing an agreement you take this clause this provision and what is the inference arising from it and again and again and again the district courts in france went against arbiter ability adjustments and it's really the seller makes this proposed adjustment to the numbers and it seems that's all that's being arbitrator the three point five and there's another arbitration sections but how does reformation of a contract get in fall under the arbitration because the there is the engagement letter and the law says that the parties can change can broaden too narrow can change the scope of arbiter ability through something like an engagement letter and whether or not the this court believe a better argument is the  letter l your honor i think what the engagement letter does whether or not it is broader than three point five six it's certainly more explicit regarding what the precise issue that the parties were presenting for arbitration because this is what was drafted after after the actual dispute arose when there was that the calculation and then the proposed adjustment to the calculation and we knew where the horse was buried and what the parties were actually disputing defines the scope and it does it it departs from the language from the construct of the a p a three point five c you know a very specific way that i think is significant extraordinarily significant to this appeal and that is it gives the arbitrator two different jobs to decide two different things first to resolve their disagreement as to whether the threshold amount for the first contingent payment has been met and this is what is so critical second if the threshold amount has been met the amount of the first contingent payment the arbitrator is given the explicit portfolio of deciding the dollar amount of the first threshold amount has been met the amount of the payment can be recycled but it says if the threshold amount has been met and so it doesn't say you can change with the threshold amount is which is basically what the arbitrator you need to know the river revenue calculation you need to know those two things in order to do the math because it's not just and you need to know the precise dollar amount because the contingent payment isn't just yes or no because there's not there's a a point at which you calculation in my just means to it they already have raised the issue of hey you can't reform the on the the threshold but in order to do the calculation of the first contingent payment under the district court's ruling what and then it goes to court and you have a trial or whatever you can litigate the issue of mutual mistake because we have raised that we are entitled to litigate it it's going to be resolved whether in court or whether in arbitration it is we are entitled to have that resolved but that has to be resolved before the arbitrator can do the calculation the amount of the first contingent payment which is explicit in this in gauge when it's raining so under the judgment as it stands right now arbitrator decide revenue calculation then we go to court and we litigate mutual mistake and whether or not reformation is appropriate so now we know what the contingent threshold amount is then you go back to the arbitrator to do this calculation of the calculation which of those two other numbers i mean my twelve year old could do it you're right or wrong or accept that the going to go back to accounting for i mean what would you do have to go back to the comfort but by putting this here explicitly saying that the arbitrator is going to do that express determination of the arbitration that the arbitrator was given and it makes no sense for it to be resolved in a ping pong way like that if you say oh we've already resolved the these two things let's just let the some claims may go to arbitration and related claims remain in court but that's not what we have here get a single point is single lane that is tease apart and one component part of it to be resolved in arbitration another  for all of which involved reconciling positions regarding accounting but we did what lone star sled and disputed that's been provided by somebody that's what happened here long long star said to sunbelt no wait a minute you have not properly calculated revenue for the attack that they attacked the fact that during the time of the business of the petrel hop you've been a those were the issues that were teed up and you don't have to ever look at how the threshold was calculated in order to resolve those two issues you can resolve that's the law were properly revenues that went into the calculations under the agreement and so he did something that accounts do quite often eat allocated between what got count and what did he even played it his job at that point but then he made the mistake of trying to dispense his own form of justice by saying now i'm going to go into the issue of reformation now this record is clear that when the arbitration cases that say that as a district court it the selection of an accountant may be something that ought to be considered in the question of what is the overall intent of the parties as expressed in the four ultimate calculation by the accounting firm on that encompasses figuring out what the threshold amount should be i don't quite understand that in either the fact that to determine that to make that determination what they basically are are because of the presumption of our ability we don't we don't disagree there clearly was an agreement to arbitrate certain defined items and therefore the presumption kicks these the court and perhaps one good way to illustrate the the the practical error of the district court's decision in the school relationship between the that calculation what would sunbelt remedy have been how could we have litigated legal mistake at that point we couldn't argue that it was beyond the scope of the arbitrators authority because he would be doing that  scope we couldn't say that that was manifest disregard for the law because he he would have calculated the the revenue calculation appropriately and yet under that scenario the very real right to litigat contractual defense of mutual mistake and seek the remedy of contractor formation would have been denied us how how do we if the arbitrator has already issued an award that according to this the contract is binding here are my revisions to it i don't agree let's go to arbitration so that the way the process is initiated and the the narrow subject matter of the cabinets the scope of what is potentially on the could have been it if c o g was not part of the front end it shouldn't be part of the back that was the speed it could have been that it got left off the back and then we would have apples to apples instead the arbitrator said no no we'll put it in at the front and  then we've got one just to oranges that the fact that the arbitrator chose the remedy of reformation at the front and rather than choosing the remedy of leaving c e o tee off at the back it is a matter of discretion within the arbitrators authority in resolving the threshold amount and whether it's been that what is the calculation and he did not administer his own form of justice he resolved the actual dispute that was presented between the parties and i disagree with with mr ratliff that the first time that reformation came up was in the parties first filings in the in the arbitration threshold amount as part of this dispute there is no provision for manipulating the threshold number a year after the a p a was finalized so even before they gave the arbitrator and entered into this engagement letter the parties were contemplating were