what he went to court that an injunction to keep that offer open during the course of the litigation he also went when everyone had to withdraw that offer at one point in time to give them a bonafide price would be what the price would be that would approach fair market value then the court took it out of the jury's hands and rendered his the court's decision basically saying where are protests closed asked for instead of getting the injunction sued for damages he would have paid six hundred forty five thousand dollars for that property he would have gone through trial he would have prevailed presumably as he did already in saying that the price but actually challenged it now he is left without the ability to even purchase that property for that for that price so the remedy that we have directly addressed the violation  was three years ago which was for any which at this point in time the value was over a million dollars for the same property so in essence this whole case does not make any sense because mr campbell instead of if this point affirms this decision and that experiences with other cases it's worth even more than what the offer was from back on so he could have bought it for them for the higher price that at one was offering him and he will still come out better than having to go all the way through trial and prevail a trial so if you are close escrow in this instance you get a much better position is the camel again and base and they're continuing ongoing intend to sell the property and they did it under the current market value rather than the market value that was before and outside the record and i don't want to focus on on anything that has happened subsequent to the court's order because there was a motion that was filed and it was denied but one thing they did say which is an undercurrent of the overall theme that plaintiff is arguing is that real country sure in california presently we are fortunate or some people are fortunate to have an increase in property values but that's not always the case i'm certain that we can think back to the one nine hundred ninety s when property values in california had to climb and so the court should focus its questions on what happened in the year two thousand when the offer was granted or when i quite made a bona fide offer to mr campbell and whether or not the district court's remedy adequately addresses the violation and whether the district court abused its discretion in formulating a remedy those are the only questions that the court need concern itself with as to the question of what the remedy is it is thousand dollars for this particular piece of property the court heard testimony that suggested that perhaps turkey festival had over valued the property and that the property might not actually be worth six hundred forty five thousand dollars and so now the district court was forced to determine whether it should force that on to take four hundred eighty thousand dollars which is a prize that was never on the table to have a willing third party who was willing to pay more and there was no evidence of any collusion between a quantum and the third party after the jury verdict of the four hundred eighty thousand dollars the people still want to pay six forty five is that what you're saying they had a contract as part of a boat sale that they wanted to purchase a series of properties and they were going to purchase in it six hundred forty five thousand dollars in the record everyone had in one nine hundred ninety and i a year before this particular sale and that's important because the pm ph severely restricts the rights of the property holder in this case the franchise or the franchise or doesn't have the ability to go out and get the best deal they did try to get the best you  wants to with the property and to ask the franchise or to do more than that in this case to not only be forced to sell it at a price that you don't know what it's going to be but to sell it at a is complaining about in this case is the fact that he is looking at property values in two thousand and five and comparing those to the proper price in two thousand and suggesting that he is the franchise he should reap the windfall for an increase in property dies and that's not the long after on as the owner of the property or all the rest of market downturn of contamination being found on the property anything that could have happened to the property at the law to remain responsible for during this time period the pm p s t does not require the franchise or to sell the property prices on the scene so the franchisee the p n p requires merely that the franchise or make a bona fide offer in this case the district court found that the bona fide offer prerequisite was not made and basically said to the parties do it all over again there's no evidence in the record that indicates that that is an abuse of discretion the no facts suggested indicate that it's an abuse of discretion and therefore i would ask that this court affirm the decision of the district court it was well reasoned it under which that you like and not challenge the bona fide in this with that offer or the price of the value or it could be given under the bona fide provision of the plant when there is no third party and this case was given under the bona fide provision so when it's given under the provision the dealer has the right to purchase that property at a price that approaches fair market value at trial it was decided that the value offered to mr campbell did not approach fair market value and the jury came back with a number that at the end of winning a trial to now be left to the so the mercy of the market now whether it goes up or down is irrelevant the point is that the market is not going to decide the value at the time at the conclusion of the trial rather than the parties agreement that have already been enforced regardless of whether it goes up or down and the court should strive to create finality when the parties went through three years of litigation and spend you know a lot of time and effort in trying to prove their case at the end of the trial when the party prevails the court should try to do everything it can to cre as much finality as possible to resolve that dispute that wasn't at issue and the dispute at issue was at one part and that is what the court did not address your the court simply rescinded that offer and said you're now the two of you your own devices everybody goes back to their corners and it's at one decides they want to continue this franchise or they want to continue trying to market it or sell the property at some other time it can mr campbell you're just going to have to wait and see thank you thank you right