improperly relied upon extraneous for all testimony they really had nothing to do with the hendrick that occurred after the contract was executed the architects interpretation of the contract and certain acts of the architect and even now most written by  are some two or three years after they can trick in finding that somehow the point was to not you have design responsibility for the building over some of the major facts of the case so who better than those two individuals busted had any design responsibility basically exaggerated one was from his contractual design responsibility let me interject and you see in compliance in compliance with what with industry standards with codes  so it had self responsibility for compliance and the architect testified that it really didn't have inspection responsibility didn't contract with the owner to have inspection responsibility for the building so it was the it was the contractors duty to comply standards in basically the ph that had numerous inspections of the building and found life safety and all kinds of other violations so basically it was easier as we're egregious there's exhibits a trial if they just errors and they said there's a record there's an there's a one of the transit has said that the building didn't meet life safety codes there's evidence in the record that these contractors didn't know what you're doing and they drawing in the trial court record is exhibit forty six and they have is dated that yes bill drawing stated january eighteenth two thousand and two where the architect's seal is the drawings and he says for aca textural and structural a contract you it's the important part of contractual construction is what was the intent of the parties at the time the contract was executed in may of two thousand so what may have been the intent two years later what the facts were i think is didn't even address the fact that the were present completed in three years in section six of mechanics things certainly requires that they have when rights the work must be completed within three years and there was no evidence of owner approved ex selling short what actually took place this project began at some point prior to that there was a scope of work dated january fifth one thousand nine hundred nine which was submitted by former boss or eighty nine thousand eight hundred fifty dollars if you look at the opinion of the lower court one of the first things that's mentioned by the lower work is that mr gone bust knew from the beginning and expressed it to the owner that he was not going to be responsible with the for the mechanical in response and what is this to dr shrinker dr schlager said just go ahead with the project and the architect mr corrales openly admitted in court under sworn testimony that he was responsible for the mechanical design of this system he was also responsible for any quote air head here and says the box certainly did stop but as far as the as far as this section six issue is concerned which i i find it to be a novel argument and one which unfortunately we was first brought to our attention during closing statements by by her own it be that as it ma we have to look at the language of the statute literally and so i seen it states that the work has to be commenced and completed with you know it has to be complete with a three year three years from incredible placement of doc work in one of the surgery rooms which was also really requote relocated to the designated location against the wall by dorm boss boss testified in an adverse examination that this reposition on the duct work was not charged for by term boss so that one item which he you know put responsibly for he didn't correct it and we're talking about a large project here and even mr manley said this is not unusual for us in a project  coal that you're going to have changes in the field there's going to be oversight it's going to be things that are missed but in this case i think the point at the end of the day the finger points unfortunately to back to schlager he wasn't back the architect of his own misfortune and the reason being is that he hired an architect that was an qualify for this type of project he also had the project commence before the id peach even approved the plants i mean this is all in evidence and he made it clear up front that he did not have experience with i v gauge codes and that's why they had to have the architect involved in fact there was testimony that mr dunn boss had recommended another mechanical engineer but dr shrinker perhaps in the interest of saving a few bucks chose not to take that route i'm so you know i don't i don't feel that my client my client was basically the pawn in which you referred to earlier he was responsible for he was the conduit if you will between the architect and the warmbloods and councils correct the direction with the report as far as the placement of those fire campers were concerned came from changing and changing got the command from the architect it's interesting to note that the plans which were some for approval for the i'd ph neglected to even indicate the place of the fire dampers mr manl under oath it made it that was an oversight on our part mr corrales admitted that was an oversight on my part in addition the ductwork which went through the the penetration went through the stairwell which you referred to earlier that was on the plant and i in catch it my client had to go back in had to correct it and he rightly charged for it as far as the cost of the project is concerned in the i'm the contract of may fifteenth two thousand it states that the scope of work was four hundred ninety three thousand two hundred eight dollars as of may first two thousand the reason it says that is because it was already readily apparent that there was going to be more work to be involved dr knew it he approved the additional work to bring this project in the compliance with the ph and he ran into a problem with my client staff and you know my client said you know i don't hate i'm not go continue to invest time and money into the project there's even there's even a in the record where dr slater openly admits that he owes an eighty thousand dollars but offered one only making a partial payment to keep it working  rights wasn't going to accept that offer he also felt uncomfortable about the fact that he was basically forced to sign off on that certification the next day he walked off the job because he just didn't feel right about it and that's in the record as well isn't it of the lower court as far as the issue concerning  aside from dorm was there were other there were two other third party defendants about mr corrales obviously and mr cheney of team company team company defaulted there in the fall as far as i know there's never been a prove up or a judgement reduced or anything like that but there in the fall as far as cross is concerned he settled out and the court took notice based on my argument that the third party complaint from dr slater to those two defendants specific leak sought the images for de lay including loss rental income is all and so forth that was not watched against my client my client's complaint against the counter complaints my client was soley for breach of contract information pertaining to the settlement with mr kroll us and then dr sleeker at the eve of trial submitted the trial statement which included a claim for the delay damaged i immediately went in on a motion in limine to have any evidence by would pertain to the lake and we just because they didn't seek that against my client i'm so that's i think that the court made the right decision it was within the discretion of the court to exclude that evidence and rightfully  had language that he would exclude engineer stamps of approval was the lead in the final ultimate version of the contract of may two thousand and he intentionally took that out to testify because he was agreeing to furnish those certifications as a design builder there is no case cited in the briefs or existing in illinois law that says that back to schrenker if the owner somehow assumes to sign responsibility in this kind of case