that the trial court ruled that that since the option with exercise first by mr de lay and mr steer and they flipped the switch first so the tr also in addition to these issues there are some additional issues that arose late through the motions to strike brief and an object there to  apparently not so it's some point in time we intend to bring a equitable action where some action to address losses by mr pelly by the  later and during that time my clients have they they have received no benefit from the corporation no salaries no tax benefits and we think there is an equitable issue there which can be raised we agreed to the rule three or four a order for the reason that we thought it was necessary to bring that issue to this court or resolution before we pursue the other issue been apparently there's a disagreement on that point between  this is just kind of interesting observation here well i just don't want to be i want to bring this hour here and i want you know at some point i expect that they'll be another proceeding a wanted to to address but let me proceed here if i might with with respect to the first issue the purchase agreement where there was a ballot contract and whether there was an option to purchase the purchase agreement option both on october fifteenth two thousand and eleven and february sixteenth two thousand and twelve there was consideration for the transaction the exercise the contracted for exercise of the option was there were were no procedures no time frame or anything that could have been better worded but at the same time it gave them the right to exercise your option and they did so they did so on feb sixteenth two thousand and twelve and as result we're entitled to read purchase their interest in the cooperation of the validity of the contract is supported by both  case law and recent restatement second of contract law and those have been cited in my brief further the provisional admissions approach which allows choral evidence in this case and allo the e mail of twenty gold giorno shows that there was a plan in place in the parties acted on that plan three days later and we think that also goes to prove the intent of the part be that the agreements to the person remit and the functional liability remit were separate contracts they were different parties involved in the contracts there was a different time frame and while there was rare reference to the two documents they say they were separate contracts in the court treated them as separate contracts the exercise of the repurchase option is a factual issue and a later with respect to issue two in the waiver issue this is probably the strongest argument i think for the appellant but the court look at this issue and there was no it has we argue in our brief there was no express waiver there may have been an implied waiver if there was a person's conduct is inconsistent with an intent to enforce right outlined in our our brief the actions of delay in steering did not provide false assurance that strict compliance with the contract will not be required there was a seven day action seven day window for with respect to issue number four whether the motion for summary judgment affidavits and case record were sufficient to grant the defendants and counterpoint of summary judgment motion we facts of this case are primarily exhibits attached to the record and and these are subject to interpretation by the court and there are not open issues of material plan but to their dismay found out that it was rejected in the end by mr bandy with respect to  or at the end of the day the court find that this case is about an agreement made by the parties which was  not held by the appellant we believe there were opportunities opportunism and bad and bad faith by the power in this matter my clients are entitled pelleas at the end of the day we would like the court to deny appellant motion to strike which has been filed in this case we would ask that the court affirm the trial court decision and realize that the option was exercise on february sixteenth two thousand and twelve and found by the trial for  further it would be our intent that there would be nothing in any kind of word that precludes my clients from bringing some future action although i understand just the statements of concern on a failed business agreement through through no fault of my clients and we believe that the purchase agreement and the order judgment order entered march twenty third  and also that one they just requested to meet to renegotiate they were entering the business so it would fail for that reason well i think that also patrick knowledge is that if they're going to come back into the business if you basically require the consent third point fourteenth saying something about we would wait on discovery until after the competition would resolve the problem with with that if you look in the record on october thirty first twenty forty eight days later m