the court and the court made a credibility determination here however to arrive at the legal conclusion which the court did orgon long posts on it and discipline and working more only recognizes for special it looks to me like you're talking about what findings a judge makes on the evidence and second it looks to me like the heart of your argument is that the judge can only make the findings he did on direct evidence and not circumstantial evidence and for that i don't see why no actually i agree with the judge for and for him pyecraft the factual authority of course that would be circumstantial evidence judge was just bolstering he was today in addition to express grants of actual authority that was also implied authority and there was also a parent already but unless you can show that it is findings of fact  expressed grant of actual law already were clearly erroneous it looks as though it's all over once you finish that point so so help me on that one first yeah well i think in order to get there the judge needed to make a finding  wouldn't put in trying to make sense of this opinion i think it does matter because he doesn't he doesn't make any finding that it was in the field agreement clients told attorney go ahead and do it client's in court represented to the court i give my client for his nice footnote here's the way it looks to me i mean it looks like he's made a number of concrete findings which include that the company's house counsel was fully to analyze whether or not that occurred we have to look at the absent conduct of the principal and the nature of the test here's the principle of he was micromanaging or clients of his micromanaging the attorney he's an attorney himself and who knows he and they would say ok we'll accept and then i told the plaintiff's lawyer it's accepted the deal was done i had spoken with actual express authority from the insurance company and they were bound and  were later told me a week later hey we want something a little different tough cases over and it looked to me like that have to read this i agree that that's how i have no signing authority and i had to send documents to the insurance company to sign fee agreement or when a client says i told my attorney to settle but i told them to wait a few hours just sounds to me like we're back to this direct versus circumstantial evidence what you are saying is that in the absence of testimony either from you or fear agreement or other letter that made that express grant that that the evidence simply cannot support and expressed grant of authority and i just i don't understand our law to be that it has to be direct implied grant of actual authority is look at the nature of the task and to do that in context first here's a case where there's a plaintiff and a consensual lawsuit it's just settled out six weeks prior and from the record for two hundred fifty thousand dollars with the third party here it is suing the second party it doesn't have to be in the lawsuit it doesn't have to hire an attorney it wants to be there it's going to get money in the same statement where where the attorney my mother says we were on a short that would make a lot of sense but i don't think it makes any sense under this analysis that a client of who just got a quarter million dollars six weeks ago coming out of a no asset bankruptcy a case that's litigating against a third party and sought to add in additional therm after the deal was in which was to get ten percent of this third party action he stated that i'm sorry he stated that reopening the alter involuntary bankruptcy case also was the source of the two hundred fifty thousand dollars reopening the alter involuntary bankruptcy case he concluded was an ingenious afterthought and that's fine that doesn't affect the legal analysis one way or the other then ten percent of the proceeds from parent to a third party thank you clearly indicated there were disputes and those disputes were resolved in favor of my client and thus the appeal here will have to show clearly erroneous determinations by the court which i don't believe that they can find th in accepted under the clearly erroneous standard all support the positions that are taken in the conclusions of law i think you also have to look at the court's footnote and accept the notion that the court at least contemplated them as being all together whether that is signature i understand i believe there is or going to forty and authority elsewhere for the notion that there is if it's a question of fact as to whether this was a settlement agreement that was reached subject to the formality of the signature as opposed to a settlement agreement testimony of mr weissman that mr field didn't do anything without his approval and that he controlled all of his actions and that's the problem with these cases you rarely get the principal walking into court and saying i gave him the authority the reason they're there is they're  ting it and the trial judge has to look at these circumstances put it all together look at the credibility witness and i would like to make if i could just one point and it's been cited in their brief that's a part of the transcript and it's the testimony of mr w ask you to convey via the attorneys for gerald woods and he goes on to say the proposal of a possible settlement a trial judge sitting there watching that testimony see somebody say i offered and then he stops and then he goes on to characterize something that shows up nowhere in the documents ok that is why the trial judge's determination on these factual issues has to be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard and that is why deference needs to be given to their findings the fact of the matter is is that as was said earlier the reality is that a client generally gives some level of authorisation for someone to communicate an offer and the other side is given an offer and the other side communicates it to their client then the client communicates back there exceptions that makes a deal and there's nothing in the record indicate that isn't what happened and those are the findings that are reflected both in the findings of fact section and in the conclusions of law section and i submit that without a doubt it also includes one of the restatement of second is adopted by oregon law the notion of what the principal authorizes the agent to say that is included in apparent authority and here the judge noted that because of the relationship and the control and the fact that mr field would not be able to do anything with out of class authority that plays right into a parent authority and the court makes the comments in the section on the findings is that so that as well so it's not just what mr manifested to mr bochy if he had actually had communications with him the issues there is the mr bashi things he sees on the e mails and believing that mr weissman was informed about what was going on but the second issue is  findings of fact that are shown in the section designator findings i'm sorry you feel that you can make your case for it imply actual authority from the i can give you a citation by the way to release statements second and if there's actually a case that we cited to the court to the national labor relations board versus duncan's case which is five thirty two f second one thirty eight the another to believe that the agent had the authority keep order to have and i believe certainly that that is something that transpired here in addition to the what i believe to be the express ran through the circumstantial evidence as family court i'd like to answer any other questions you have really have no other comments here united states