portfolio recovery associates of p r a octane or the assignment of the debt from the credit card company i don't believe that in the record ok all right is that significant at all it's not significant our position is that unless i missed the contract with knight in delaware and we don't have information about any record ground there correct but also i think the nature of credit card transactions are such that i think under state law they're generally viewed that each transaction is an independent contract they provide a good backdrop and our position has sort of basics is just the latest pronouncement from the delaware supreme court in a world wide of cases that have clearly said that our like with the district court concluded is that the statute is not applied literally but there's also a form of selection clause that says litigation has to be in the courts of delaware and there's plenty of authority that says of course selection clauses sufficient they can for personal jurisdiction yet the supreme court in their car or cruise lines case say even in a ticket to go on a cruise ship that's enough to say somebody in the state of washington is subject to suit in in florida  why isn't the form selection pi's here sufficient to say that panicle was always subject to being served pursuant to the wrong on statute of delaware and we agree that he was always subject to it that there goes into really what i think is personally as an argument and this isn't the point of both were there were cases in the non dealer cases that have dealt with it with the same factual circumstances here have addressed in terms of how to resolve this issue i think it's only if you take the position that that the analysis has to be is does a delaware stake or have the ability to exercise every statute of limitations and all that that entails and the same language of this tone provision that i know as as applied literally would provide for an extended period of tolling and even becomes unreasonable i that there is that kind of escape clause it's applied so that the forums statute of limitation applies i'm not right shouldn't we are the party selected delaware along with it unreasonable a in because previously he wasn't inedible to suit in that one state notion that this amenable to service can be anywhere in the world the plant of the statute in the point of the jurisdiction delaware is so that they can have control over the person and exercise jurisdiction over the person and so he was served in this case including new york court of appeals although that that was even more complicated because they adopted barwon statutes they looked at new york law you know inattentive not simply leave this as as a delaware law issue but let's look at saudi basic saudi basic it was a case the benefit from that home provision but outside of delaware that that at one provision was never intended to apply why should we interpret it that way a think it's a fair question but i think it's a theoretical question because you have to start with the plain language of the statute true but on the other hand we have a deliberate supreme court instructing us that when we are looking at a statute but the application of it would render i reasonable or absurd result that the statute then can be deemed think that you know touch of probably said earlier so what do you do and what oregon and washington did was to look and sort of make some decision and say this is by let some public policy without our states and of course always have the right to do that so you issue of the two wrong you've got the sort of the length of time issue and the length of time issue tellers from court has said a couple of years or twenty years is perfectly ok if you if you want to count a tack of the second edition which is ok well so what do we country if they don't like it they can change it but secondly if why why would they want to change it if if it's benefiting those who who may be setting up their businesses they are incorporating the motivated to change any statute i scared about my opponent is the statute means what it means and there been any other number of opportunities in decisions that have been around that if this is the truth out that there was something wrong after a bit already decided that their interpretation asked us at least as your first line of argument to apply it right even even that the the two that an in washington oregon looked at it for more little little perspective than resorted to the air escape opposing the issue of certification i was simply trying to to provide my thinking on that you know there are there are book cases outside of delaware that have raised issues about that i can't put my figures on it i feel like we did at least cite one language of being run seventeen i've not seen any indication from the brother or supreme court that that's what they should do if we were to disagree with the holding of the district court on up if it's unclear if the court is going to be inclined to reject the argument of the delaware law which really what that means is that both under new jersey law enjoy a lot of time and ultimately it would go back to the court in the nation rest of whether the new jersey law record and want to come in just on an age where we touched upon or a brief everything took pains to make very clear about how limited the scope of their decision was they were just responding to an argument made by the consumer in that case that under oregon's truth of the regime an oregon court would treat the new hampshire tolling statute by replacing the