student at the trial and all soon again here today this is a straightforward breach of contract case the trial court erred in the sunni management agreement after it was already i have an aberrated this management company for over twenty years and having as many as thirty clients at a time it would be almost impossible to read and under you know with every associations governing address the issues provisions because the differ in every single association it is customary that they address it as issues arise it would be impossible for cases here and the dynamic it's at work is we have a board of directors they get a record for two years and then you know this constantly changes be here but sometimes a new maturity takes tomorrow they said no he was there never precluded from performing any more duties and his responsibility i should also point out that when he received the letter the joint twenty seventh letter notifying him the other claimed breaches contract by association through their attorney losing even a battle even if big mama did it by apple at the end of the day there's a lawsuit pending and there's a disposition rendered by the supreme court and the question is whether it's use of self serving statements by the board members and they were very vague they were very self serving and the court demanded them that they should have provided some legal assistance or were rather from an attorney that would have supported their position but all other statements were very self serving and very vague was a turn on when the statements were self serving again is restricted not exclusive hearing and it's something law we also have a case here where this association is the stranger to making exceptions to the provisions of their governing documents the was that the procedure story great is that he goes he refers to the governing documents as the support issues arise and there was a letter way making exception to that question of the declaration and paid for with association funds the board members bill there is correspondence that would indicate to the management company that the condo association intends to waive or is that read the letter from the board went directly to the board member who was receiving the benefit of the associations payment and somehow alliance with made aware that yes but alliance did not see receive a similar correspondence from the board indicating that it intended to waive the twenty four month restriction you know there is nothing in them writing specifically but they waived it every month from july of two thousand and eight through october of two thousand  need to be followed and tried to quickly completed the required analysis and looking at the contract in order to determine whether or not there was a valid and enforceable contract a clear that they don't have the authority they didn't have the asperity to enter into an agreement in excess of three years even if they believed it was in the past interests of the association certainly in the best interests of the association is very to you can't just ignore it even if it's in the best interest because there's a reason for those terms refer to the governing documents they were i believe that there was no evidence that by continuing to accept management serve the condo association in fact read all the way i'm understanding your responses to the effect that they would have needed to have a cause for the confusion into a contract in excess of two years occasion but more importantly because of the testimony and because of the terms of the underlying decoration and the recent case law as it relates to association binding we can't just ignore the terms of the declaration it is race to have the following functions duties responsibilities authorities and lists all the administrative services that it will do then of itself indicates that it is by direction of the board specifically the president that the with respect to it being a void avoidable contract to be afraid of all contract as the court as the trial court indicated there was a mutual mistake of fact all the parties reimburse lay ignorant of that restriction the association failed to prove a trial that the difference between the two here in the three year contract was material enough to the contract to make it white a ball there's no question that are very clear that not be association would have to be adverse everest effected to prove that it was a material and it was subsequent that they sought an alternate i'm all for alternative pleadings it's a very useful tool for all of us attorneys but at the end of the day we have to elect our remedy they elected to terminate it pursuant to the terms of the