those underlined cases they too were dismissed without prejudice and some of them with the express intention of we are simply going to allow these folks to complete their dispute resolution procedure and they can refile if they be for the jury importantly on the ground the truck or below indicated that filing suit was a lack of good faith essentially as a matter of law but i feel like that fails to consider the totality of the circumstances leading up to this effectively strung along or at least the jury could find that redbook was strung along for lack of good faith but i mean just jump the gun and see that and that's where i disagree you are because one that there is no border filing suit right so in this case you practice here shooting clue that because red hook didn't receive one hundred thousand dollars that it had every right to go for a period of five weeks following not you have the seventy seven thousand dollar demand been remains outstanding in was simply ignored it it would also include the fact that in response to that and then the demand there was an email response back saying you know this is very tenuous we request your documents and we set a deadline we would like to know because they should have had it way back at the beginning these are september so they were generated or this is what we call pretentious was provided immediately before the twenty thousand dollars was due a deadline for providing the documents was given on site ignored it and then a couple of weeks later they requires the indemnity demand to be made within sixty days of discovery of the grounds for the indemnity as we played here these items were known upon closing and they were provided until but your position of on that issue v and i don't mean to you i'll get to the answer there are two problems to this the first is that you have to raise it within sixty days of discovery the second is that  damages must be shown there by right so the trial court somebody said well no damages have been shown it i believe that's improper one because the extent of damages is an argument for the jury to even at the very least interest on two hundred thousand dollars over that period is five thousand dollars it's a small amount of money but it does exist more than that had been brought up in the proper time all of these steps could have gone and gone through and some portion of that jewish thousand dollars likely would have come down we believe you know as we've played this is a pretext we believe we can show all of this or most of it is falls and so we have shown damages which for judicial conduct also makes sense because they mean is that is if you if you get this case dismissed without prejudice you have then you feel like you walk away with and that's a time is of the essence clause which under texas law is material as a matter of law there is no such exception for that point one of the factors in materiality that i think is very crucial here is the extent of forfeiture essentially redhook is being required to forfeit two hundred seventy seven thousand dollars based on that you know that the section seven point three which you know maybe you have printed it judy k did the rights of them to attack two hundred thousand dollars so what you're saying but what i'm saying your honor is the parties entered into green that with the specific dispute resolution provision read who chose not analogous to a title seven action in a title seven action before plaintiff can bring an action in court for discrimination he has to go to the have seen followed a charge of the e e o c has one hundred eighty days to file th charge if he doesn't file his charge of the yosi within a hundred eighty days him loses the opportunity to bring his action in court if he moorings his action in court the court can dismissed with prejudice this is an analogous situation here you want to penalize them for not doing what they agreed to do and that they don't get the second bite at the apple you made in the election not to buy about agreement he didn't do it so you don't get to do that and did later the court but you want to enforce the agreement that they bargained for against him rather than him getting a second chance to do what they should have done in the first place we want to receive the benefit the other party has a certain period of time within which to either object or not object if they don't object they are deemed to have accepted that that claim is proper in this case reg could never tightly objected to the claim that we made therefore under the agreement under the bargain that we struck with this contract they are deemed to have accepted the propriety of the charge that we made then they want to come in and undo everything we're not seeking to penalize them they're seeking to penalize u without running to the courthouse without engaging counsel at our expensive rates and incurring legal fees but rather keeping things on a business level and allowing the business people to come together and resolve  go to court and then come back to negotiate i mean at this point it's effectively negotiating with a gun to an on sides head because the lawsuit has already been filed the lawyers have already been engaged the legal expenses are way that happened and i think this really is is appropriate is that right hook accepted the charges by not timely objecting but even if you did even if you put that aside then yes that is set out in section seven point two but that's what this lawsuit really huge red hook the seller is saying that on site the buyer breached the agreements by not paying the whole back money so they are the party seeking in the thick asian under the allegations that they've made in their lawsuit and yet they have completely ignored they dispute resolution provisions that now they're saying don't even apply to them so then the case it's a contract the parties are sophisticated parties in in coming up with the terms of the contract they included a carefully negotiated dispute resolution provision resolutions dispute resolution provisions in contract or favor policy in texas the court was dropped would was was correct in dismissing the case because the because redhook had jumped the gun and  the case is case should be dismissed without prejudice do you have any remedy to come back against them for the failure to give you what you called the benefit of the part of a by they're jumping the gun that's an interesting question in the party where a question i think the answer would be on the one hundred and that certainly with respect to economic damages it's a cost of attorney's fees those would certainly do things that we would and does business with that with a number of companies and by being sued prematurely they may all face the prospect of having other companies that they deal business with look at them and say you don't abide by contracts you mean you've been su that the service is me in it basically computerized management services for at least properties so if you have it if you go these properties whether it's whether it's office properties apartment properties for the properties you can hire on site management to come in and manage that property for you and manage it through a number of ways including electronic computer services honor his name was the words matter below before the trial court on site specifically inform the trucker that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider is the speed and as such it could not resolve the merits of the dispute so if words matter in this case v the argument they made before the trial court is something that matters because that's what the trial court should have done if it's found a lack of rightness which it did dismissal should've been without prejudice home depot doesn't seven west of three two three two two seven six that permitted the dispute resolution to occur moreover versus first mount vernon industries association two thousand and three  zero five one five five and one more loan capital c versus first choice loan services two thousand and twelve six to eight six one seven you know the reason i go into that amount of detail is because courts read the united states hold that when one of these disappear a solution procedures is not complied with dismissal is without prejudice and the parties may go forward with that to be sent that they claim damages from this br that's something that they can and frankly have raised in the state court proceeding that's none of these arguments that he has made about the v the issues the problems is something that cannot be raised in a lawsuit the value of the dispute resolution procedure itself i think experts could likely look at contracts where you have an asset sale under such a circumstance and one without and from a relative value of that as that's something that i believe the next your expert could  nothing else they're curable with money right if that's true your honor frankly it's like it's almost like a irreparable injury argument is almost like a temporary injunction you know these things are irreparable there are things that they may see in