the move it is only untitled assume or judgment if the right to judgment is clear and free from doubt all inferences must be resolved against the current and it is inappropriate improper and did pretty much all of the things that a trial judge is not supposed to do in passing on summary judgment his conduct in this case is  multiple places that in fact there are so many questions of fact pertaining to whether this plaintiff could have ever obtain summary judgment we believe the very reason that there are as we call questions of fact that we say in our brief m there really are questions of fact for example with respect to the idea of the of the plaintiff at all looking at judging and responding to a plaintiff's motion we say well there's a question of fact but then we go on to say really when you look at the evidence there really is no it is a red herring in and if you look at the remainder of the position of the plane takes on these briefs i can see why they try to make a waiver argument because we don't think they have a leg to stand on there are multiple problems with the standing issue with respect to this plane initially the case was filed in the name of an entirely different company only during the physicians when given the state of the record the only thing that could have been done properly under the law is to enter summary judgment in defendant's favor on the standing issue alone not to mention the other many other issues in the case name the right to do business how do we know they retained other parts of the business the counter see them well we don't know whether a general paid them but what we do know is that if you look at the face of the documents in the transaction by which agent inc he was not merged it was an asset say those documents are part of the record lucetta to the briefs and we've actually lost cited from the actual agreement itself does why does it have to be specifically identified why can't we just assume that that was part of the transaction and therefore the accounts receivable went with the business because the transaction was committed to writing the terms of the writing set forth the terms of the purchase it's standard contract interpretation standard contract law it would be improper for any court either of childhood or certainly at this level to read into the written contract a fully integrated document that specifically set forth this was not a back of a napkin transaction this was a type of written legal representation on all sides  presumably multimillion dollar transaction and it was specifically set up by the parties involved as an asset purchase does this fully integrated documents say that the accounts receivable remain with the  to fail to do that because there is a that can be noble conceivable interpretation of corporate wall for the case law that interprets the corporate statutes that would consider or allow muller pinehurst daring to be the legal successor to hawthorn melody being as job at man testified on equivocal in his deposition he still owns one hundred percent of the some portion perfect response yes he threw the transaction yes it is a fifty percent and then there was that whole mahler l l c as well but again in order for there to be a legal successor other corporate submit that if you look at this transaction summary judgment really should be and should have been entered in the on behalf of the defendant because it's not hard at this appeal correct we did not heal from the denial that is material fact listed mcmahon is not an officer director mueller pinehurst model he has no ownership whatsoever in the company that is seeking to collect on this account receivable even if you put aside the lack of identity of ownership and back to the other point well what are the accounts receivable that when there was a claim or a defense based on an oral contract it simply should not be decided on a motion the existence of an oral contract its terms and the intent of the parties or questions of during the sixteen we period in two thousand sat two thousand said the period is june eighteenth to october fifth that's it no more or less in milk purchase contract everyone who reads that defended purchased milk during this timeframe everyone agrees that the milk it was purchased was at a rate of about thirty thousand dollars of milk product per week simple math receive them and again that's one of the great what i'm calling the den facts that the defendant throws up before the panel and by dent in the facts i mean facts that don't go anywhere they anyway what i heard in mr williams attempts to navigate through your pointed questions was that we've got a great trial ahead of us because boy there are some questions to be show central clients potential into existing clients so why do business hard to test that well we have a business card because at some point business cards also can be responsive rather than proactive when everyone we say it is the facts however as they came out show questions on every one of these material elements of a kind we submitted must be reversed thank you for your time thank you very much