interference with the terms of contract they could not that is the same don't could not repay this contract without those funds and in fact at the time that they signed it they explicitly said to mr o'neil we won't be able to repay this if we don't get our money back from partners you have to understand that and there was no of for nothing f that you're applying the ruling the final judgment of a prior case there was no final judgment in this case given that were not the exact same claims for the exact same parties the claims later asserted were based upon wage payment and collection act these were different from the prior claims that were sort of in his own case which were interference with contract it may sound somewhere but there are different theories and they should have been given an opportunity for exploration on their own merits and in the prior case there says that their obligation to be paid was conditional on their receiving money from our us that's nowhere in the know and the court refused to go that far and i think that was the correct approach to take because there simply is no truth in this no it indicated that performance was by way of payment from funds received from marcus as opposed  by labor that in essence i believe the officer in question simply because they're either dealing with an actual condition that's expressed somewhere or one party made performance possible on the part of the other party summary judgment was also in early on affirmative defense to the second affirmative defense raised by the defendants was the clean hands doctor and i always understood the clean hands doctrine is as meeting history but the court was mindful of its decision its to trauma nation prior case what this court has done in addressing the issues of the business just rule and found that  consolidation would be the most expeditious manner of handling this litigation so over a part because when the case got as far as this court it was still consolidated action she was a defendant and she was represented by the same attorney that was representing  so her interests were protected her claims are basically the same claims that her husband i was out of money they did pay me i should have been paid now  wasn't she wasn't a party and there was no final judgment in this case is the same litigation in other words both cases are one litigation and so he argues that because it was the final judgment the only analysis is a lot of the case if you look at the law case analysis that he's arguing that this is really a subsequent stage of the litigation but no matter how they raise the legal issues no matter what label they stick on the business judgment is going to protect mr wrong and whether the court wants to uphold the lower court on the  rely on the business judgment rule then that is further grounds for the business judgment rule protects a party acting as an officer for his official  this case concerns a private no executed between private individuals there's no application of the business judgment rule anywhere in this  or determine that in an action as well as to the actions of officers that he did apply and i would respectfully disagree with him too much about that now  and there was no final judgment so the only a political doctrine is the law of the case and she was not a party in that case and her claim should have not been barred and