a total of six cases today three of them are being submitted without oral argument just on the briefs they are appeal number zero five dash thirty one eighty seven taylor vs veterans administration department of veterans administration peel number zero five thirty three seventy two matthews versus the office of personnel management and appeal number zero five dash seventy one ninety seven lopez versus department of veterans affairs of the three cases on the oral argument calendar the first is appeal number zero five to twelve fifty hovan act versus united states postal service mr capo good morning welcome what we have here council was there any provision of the lease you apparently only have one page of it in the appendix but was there any provision of the lease by which mr thank you for the correction on printing pronunciation of his name had a right to be notified about any concern of excessive rental rates in the year or two period leading up to the expiration of the original ten year lease term those are not in the contract per se but in the postal service guidelines there are specific provisions  the well that say what with respect to the less who are being consulted the a year or two before the end and i understand that but i'm trying to differentiate between what various employees of the service are supposed to do on the one hand which i don't consider of much interest and what mr h right to expect in the circumstance where the postal service a year or two prior to the end of the period developed a concern about possibly excessive rent does he have a right to in effect gives him a right to be warned that they have a rental rate concerned in the period where they're deciding whether to renew the lease versus make alternate arrangements i although i can't invite your your honour's attention to the provision there is a provision that i rely upon that requires the postal service to monitor all contracts that contain an option purchase provision granted granted they  should monitor it for postal service purposes but where is there anything that says he has a right to be told that they have a concern that the rent is too high and that that concern is going to impel them to make alternative arrangement concern then maybe there's a foundation for your argument but in the absence of some specific tax non binding or binding why isn't mr hove anik in the place of any other it's the way the court is phrasing the question that is troublesome it's not that he has a right to be warned about this stuff because there is no right to be warned about that and but if the court would entertain my position on this that rather than looking at it as a right to be warned why can mr rubin to expect that governmental officials are going to follow their own guidelines when you live up to those guidelines there is nothing about this right to be warned business but what the readers  it back to the point that i was addressing your honor there is no there this is a ten year express contract there's no doubt about that stuff but but what we have here and what i mean urging the court to consider is in addition to that when you have a contract with the purchase option that in the post office guidelines imposes certain responsibilities upon the post office one job it is to monitor the lease number two is that if they had followed dos if they had followed those mr bennett would have gotten the benefit of the contract that he believed that he was getting in the very early turbo this stuff now is a ten year contract there's no question about that followed their own guidelines it would have been renewed because the mortgage survey was not done if they had done the market survey that would have triggered another obligation for them to contact mr hu bennett directly mr and one point i urged the court to consider here me i live there she teaches a cornell university and we had a long conversation about who was going to commute and i lost a the board's decision should be fair mr hogan ex rights are limited by the terms of the lease which states that the lease may very new at the option of the postal service injure him and there is substantial evidence in the record that although there were mistakes made and stop the administration there was no intent to to injure mr banneker or to prevent him or to harm him in any way sound conclusion about the possibility that postal officials were in fact i mean did faith intending to  well you know i mean there's nothing in the record that suggests that anyone at any time told mr ho bannock that he had a right to be informed and certainly the postal regulations don't state that he has a right to be informed  fine its decisions based on that to write that evidence that's presented by mr banneker and by the postal service and to the extent that there's a lack of evidence i think that shows that that there was no evidence of that for can address the reasons why why mr by and was not called to the bill or did find that the  on so he purchased her to build build build and then the postal service turned around and lease another plot of land owned by the same post looms proper role in this drama is to be a landowner and she should be the land or she should be able to be a postal official making recommendations on one and then on the other hand be the landowner benefiting from the very same  assertions by the postal service officials who were involved in this that the reason that they did not renew the lease once was economic and that the decision  performance but what mr her vanek is trying to do here is to use that contractual element to expand its contractual obligations i'm sorry the postal service is contractual obligations beyond those that are in the express contract the contract only says we will exercise the option and our discretion and the regulations that the postal service was required to perform in its administration of managing real estate was for the benefit of the postal service and making sure that their rental properties were a market value to the extent that mr banneker is an incidental beneficiary of that that i will say that with respect to the provisions that we're dealing with here which i found a page three sixty eight  think it can be good or something like either it's this notice or it's the postal service guidelines i think that in any organization you have to read it in its totality is what what the message of september ninety ninety seven of not errors because i never suggest there may be some intentional conduct there i think that there are so many errors in this case that the only reasonable inference that you could make from all that is that they just weren't going to do this under any circumstances they weren't going to exercise us under any circumstances and everything that they could possibly do to avoid it was done or i think we have your argument squarely in mind we thank you we thank both council will take the case