you hoped to find in the discovery and why it was you thought you would find that it seemed to me you just said you had this general discovery you wanted to do well in my ma clear enough so let me try again what precisely could you tell the just not not referring to bridgetown appeal to us but what did you tell the district court below that you wanted to find that you needed the discovery to look for and that you did you ever mention the issue of standing to the district court i don't i don't i don't think i mentioned the word standing but basically the standing is a conclusion i come from the fact that either you are the support it as brother counsel just stated there are two very specific issues on appeal here today the st issue on appeal is the district court abuse of discretion in denying the motion existed in this case they did not allege and issue a standing it before the district court but at the same time that the other side filed the motion discovery they did file a motion to dismiss based on for lack of subject managers diction which included exhibits and all that so the matter was fully briefed before the district quare and a ruling  was make that there was diversity jurisdiction now before this court they're making a different argument which is to standing argument and basically what they're saying is that whether about the stock  rightful owner of the credit facilities at issue and again that is a different issue from what they post in the district court but regardless of that there is ample record in the district court that acknowledging them about is the rightful owner of the credit facilities here in addition to up and i'm still not mission before the district court then you have a motion for summary judgment in there we've had contested facts which not only prove that about the stuff is a rifle owner of the credit facilities here but included the evidence like the endorsed notes and all that the that proved the best that is a rifle owner of the credit facilities here and those have standing to sue in this case that should dispose of this done the argument brought here for the st time before th is only the only issue before this court is the dismissal of the st cup cause of action which is a bit of the one based on the equity powers because the nd and rd causes of action were dismissed by the district court based on the this missile was proper i want to put the contractual relationship in its proper context this is a loan agreement the main the main obligations between the parties was a bank too long money to do the is an issue of the lotto in case there's a default of the obligations as it so happens here how do you put the the the relationship in its proper context there was no  committed by the district court in dismissing the counter st if you go to their st cause of action it is a cause of action for unjust and richie there's no mention about any other doctrine  reversal of the sprint dot com sprint case which in that case it only dealt with the in just in richmond doctrine to what i'm posting here that when there is a contribution the parties there's no reason to go to stated that the economic crisis by itself is not sufficient or not for seal of event to make the robots extent it was a doctrine applicable and thus being able to modify it terms of a contract