i believe the issues on appeal and the points that i wish to make with this court's permission are relatively simple our brief relit well sets forth our position i will not tend to repeat that i hope to make the sinks points and reserve the bulk of my time either for the honorable judge's questions or for a response if necessary to my opponents the defendants in this case are either parties or not parties to the contract that rather simple minded statement that important points that are very important issue in this case because we don't know at this point i'm certainly didn't know at the time of the fleeting and i don't think that we know now whether they were parties or no contract and that is that were meant and they were explicitly said to apply to all causes of action the court on your at all so that remains precluded and since you said that they were parties and since the exhibits that are attached to the complaint can properly be means they just are aren't they they are something which is yet to be determined factually the scope and the amount of authority than agent has is an issue of fact that they're not parties or even some parties well parties are agents of parties i guess is in the alternative i believe they are not parties in the sense that they are not the contract in parties they are certainly agents of parties because they are either the positive for a bank or a trustee or a service or but what does that make them is the issue i think that still has to be decided the bundle of my real property professor would  respect i think the fact of whether the parties are not is that that is based upon the fact the scope the extent of their authority it is a question of law as to whether or not we should be permitted to play the  alternative either as to whether it's an interference with contract or it's an interference with or it's a breach of contract but that is based upon ultimately the termination of fact either by the the court or by the jury to i take it from your answer that what you question i'm sorry i mean you seem to me seem to be saying that you have no intention of electing remedies that you are going to go before a jury an argument either or and let the jury determine i think with the words that you i think hopefully you know if i said it improperly i apologize for not being articulate i understand fully what the facts show as of the time of trial and that a record like my remedy yes ok you keep saying you don't know what the facts will show if you have any reasonable basis at this changes in the final agreement sent out as we've alleged sent out the various signature pages with the promise that they would be included they were not included and as a result of our reliance we were damaged when we got into the obvious if that's not true how could you know how can you reasonably rely on how could it be justifiable reason because i have a client who runs this company that's got a seventh grade education and he didn't review it immediately in the real we're still pleading at this stage of the game we have pled that he was justified in his reply he knew it explained to me in simple terms how anybody with thirty five years experience in the real estate the lawyers could possibly reasonably rely on somebody as representations about what's in a document think he himself has in his hand i don't sign i don't know that he had four lawyers but i think we're looking for yet that a person who doesn't want to pay a lawyer to look at a document when it comes back and doesn't look at it until it becomes an issue yes a person could make that mistake and not look at about a timely basis enthused your client to find the merger clause or allegation say that deckert fraud no one attacker are who attack or sorry don't have the name in front of me but the particular person who engaged in the negotiation with his attorney which is in any way we can respond to that with the particular name of the founders pointed out that you had to plead with particularity and and we did that pleading with particularly to say the united states the front of the no but we said with particulary  the cases were promised to be incorporated that they were not included in the final version that there was an intent to induce reliance and that the because they were not included that we were damaged that's all that the law under noticed the pleading and when they take the signature page will be included with the changes made and they were not but that's not enough to be thrown under under if you know he's accepting that it's true and that's just that it could be negligent transaction it could be you might elling firm is able to answer a question that may arise there the question here is where we've been since this case was last in the court the court made it very clear that while fraud negligent misrepresentation has attempt to replete where are we now we find ourselves again with the second man a complaint while has many different allegations plead the alternative that many details related right if i understand it correctly that the first complaint that was up here on appeal before was just dismissed for failure to state a claim and this isn't i'm a misunderstand the record that's why i'm asking you the question but my understanding is that it was a dismissal for failure to state a claim under twelve b six then it goes back down and the district court on remain and with respect to the second amended complaint  the who what where when most particularly the alleged change pages without knowing what those changes would have said we have no idea what the misrepresentation would have been there is quite a lot of allegations as to what the course of dealing was between al starr and decker and the other parties but we don't know that's why or what precisely was said i would note too that as concerns amendment cal starr has not in its br asked for an amendment to the contrary it stood on the strength of the second plane and argues that that alone is sufficient case where we have a party he was attached contract to the complainant stated over and over again in the common facts and even under tortious interference itself that we are parties to agents to these contracts