problem with being interrupted to field any of your questions because i'm here i'm really here to do that you read the briefs and then you know the case so it's really  of contract case which is either is either the cost of completing a project or the difference in value that had been done correctly and what was actually done so they've conceded that the evidence is not in the record what they've argued is they're entitled to reliance damages in the cited very gentleman versus george in the on of productions case from the th circuit in that case so they were not at any evidentiary advantage to apply this reliance damage theory i'm not even sure i've never really heard of a few for this case and i don't practice in federal courts on that sure what the only court feel about this theory of reliance damages to me it sounds like restitution except you don't place the both parties the status quo  and here the twenty thousand dollars that was received by house toppers was used to purchase about a little less than one hundred thousand dollars a materialist which he was forced to abandon at the project so even here restitution wouldn't be appropriate because you can't be placed back the decision we would have been in  if we were doing restitution other difference and excuse me i'm very dry i'm going to guess if the other issue is these apply where the defendant is repu principal owner of house toppers showed up on the morning the project work started never went up on the roof but the sub contractors employees were up there on by the way the sub contractor was a license of a fully license roofing contractor and this is his employees are there for qualified under the act to be doing the work so he goes there and they checks on him and then he leaves to go to some other projects never went up on the roof that day receives a tax and they tell him this roof is so  estate and there are meetings arranged st meeting doesn't go so well there's an altercation which is denied has stopped and after the employee my client tries to work out a written change order which is required under the contract to complete the work explaining that the entire roof needs to be replaced no deal is worked out and excuse me i have a real be a tickle in my throat undisputed was paid and there's the check in the record not by the plaintiff's it was paid by phelps trail chiropractic now l trail is corp she's a chiropractor the building was bought from a foreclosure sale it's pretty clear the intent was she planned to move her clinic into the building once they rehabbed it it need to be rehabbed and they knew that when they bought it because the roof was torn apart when they bought it and so we don't know they were going to rehab the building and they did and they ended up doing that the twenty thousand dollars was paid on it aided by somebody else trailed not by the plaintiff the plaintiff didn't actually encourage emonges there's no evidence use no evidence there was a promise to repay they have to help trail no evidence that i'll trail when assuming it eventually moved in as a time it was ever given a credit towards the rent for twenty thousand dollars there's simply no evidence to support that the plaintiff was damaged the complaint alleges that if that the plaintiff's downpayment that's contradicted by the check in the plaintiffs can't even there's no evidence that this was even money that trail gave as a gift because al trail was going to use the property so there was no there was no gift there so there's no damage as far as consumer fraud i don't think this isolated can reach a contract rises to the level of consumer fraud but assuming it does again there's no proximate cause of this twenty thousand dollars damage is the work was performed by a licensed contractor so when judged when the judge  and didn't disclose that they didn't have a license those damages the twenty thousand dollars was not practically caused by my client's lack of disclosing he didn't have a license because the subcontractor did there's no duty for a general act there was no deceptive act this was that was a proximate cause of the damages objector roof was left exposed because my client was told to working did not regain the access to properly secure the roof so there again there's no damages proximately caused assuming are you want to know that my client was deceptive by not disclosing his lack of license and parking lot so none of those damage were or allowed and shouldn't have been the punitive damages those are only supposed to be imposed where the conduct is willful or operate just due to an evil motive or reckless indifference there was no showing that can actual damage can't impose punitive damages assuming worst case scenario punitive damages were recoverable they were accessory yes thank you sir justice jorgensen do you have any questions yeah i do you said you said the general contractor has no duty to disclose who his subs are but doesn't he have an obligation to disclose whether or not he's properly license before entering into the contract you can't do the work who's going to do the work that didn't happen so there really there really wasn't a deception to begin with because a plaintiff knew ahead of time that  wasn't licensed but i don't think a general contractor you know if i'm a general contractor i'm going to be hiring plumbers i'm going to hire roofers i'm going to be hiring all kinds of contractors before the contract was signed indicating i look for your license i can't find it and they asked for his license number and apparently he didn't remember it and gave or misinformed or as to a license number and then if you if he had already been on the the web site the only department regulations she would have known that the out license number was was not correct and should have inquired further the question was when did that happen they had happened gosh darn it approximately approximately a week before the contract was signed or within a month before the contract was signe is the sole member and manager of the l l c that's what he testified to and no none in the record ok there were other pieces of evidence that were presented to the trout court that allegedly related to damages but what did the trial court say about those other receipts he found that those were not sufficient  they were insufficient i i don't think he trusted the receipts there were all of these cash payments came in our checks table the cash and those were all cashed they were all drawn trail accounts that were all to be asked by a dab and then the cash was used to pay these these day workers go in and work on the interior of the building to the painting and what not exact some of the receipts show that there were also credit card receipts which showed that  the money was money was spent on a on a barbie towel and candy bars were the only check in the record that was submitted as evidence of damage that was not to be able to catch was payable to a avian company that resurfaced the parking lot obviously that wasn't damage caused by the rooftop  ok didn't the trial court find that the failure to get permits and tell the city as well as the license issue about who was licensed to do commercial the basis for the fraud finding by the trial court well the the the d m edges were or were not related to those those didn't proximately caused any damage one the lack of a building permit those can testified by the city official the village official be testified that that could still be acquired my client intended to you and me after agreed they would go and acquire the permit and that wouldn't caused any damage except that the project was stopped dead in its tracks if you had time that was the same day that the village inspector was there saying oh you guys need a building permit you didn't shut down the project my client said will be will be there later and we'll all get one so the lack of a building permit wasn't an issue except that the contract itself is silent on whose duty it is it a building permit and the municipal code requires it of the owner so it was actually the owner would be have a duty to acquire the permit that can be acquired by the owner's contract or but it's not required to be required  contractor provide the permit ok why if you were trial council correct no no ma'am i was proud of i i will have to admit that he's my brother damages the court found those to be too speculative so we did put the images in we did present damages we were asking for the twenty thousand dollars as damages we asked for a damage has to be cost to complete the work which is the standard you know the general rule for damages and that's that's how we proceed at the trial court in its opinion you terminate those were too speculative and didn't agree with those rather the trial court gave us the twenty thousand dollars and damages essentially saying that you know defendants breached the contract and on damages you know was the amount that we paid  this is not rested a recession you know think about in terms of you pay someone five thousand dollars to build a patio for you and they never come and do any the work you're out of pocket five thousand dollars the fact that the amount of damages that the court determines happens to be the same as a deposit doesn't automatically mean that it's resurgent that's an entirely different theory in that it's very similar to the gauger case which has been cited in younger the court approved damages and they were the plaintiffs equal to the amount that the plaintiffs had paid to the defendant there was also some additional damages on there for some additional work at the  but but that's what the basis of the damages the merry gentlemen mean for its reliance damages and these are it's not recession so we did put in evidence the court simply did not agree to our measure of testified that she looked up the license there was some question as to what his license number was she looked it up and she found it and it was a limited license and she testified at trial that she just assumed that that license allowed him to do that work so she did her due diligence the problem is the defendant never disclosed the limits of license only allows him to do residential road that does not allow him to do commercial real thing which you my client was told by the defendant that oh we have to replace the entire rock and here's the contract you have to sign this contract before we do any further work while the trial court properly noted that almost immediately after the plane if the defendant started working that they demanded and told the plaintiff we have to replace the entire off well that's not what they contracted for on top of of the plaintiff's expert's testimony which was completely contradicted was bad work under the original contract was supposed to only be in the northwest corner yet the fan didn't didn't work in two other corners that's really started in the defendant never did any work in the northwest corner so when the judge says that almost immediately after the work started the defendant said we have to do the whole row if it appears that the defendant had planned to do this all along he never intended to work in the northwest corner he wanted to get the full rough contract in what he did to even further than if he cut too large holes in opposite corners of the northwest corner and left it with the test once every three by five foot size holes cut clear through to the middle into the building the expert witness said there is no reason for doing this you just if you're replacing the test which is a particular type of weapon you simply peel that back you don't need to go after the underlayment but this is what they did it and then top of that they did not properly cover the holes the testimony also of the opinion of the expert witness was that you only removed that which you could repair and replaced to make the right watertight in one day to go and replace ten percent of the one day that's all the work you do further he testified that even when he left the job he was under no obligation to make sure to secure that building to make sure that it was watertight at least for a temporary basis all the defendant did was he put a tarp on there which actually covered up the holes and created a hazard if someone walking up there could have fallen through and been seriously injured that judge you know basically said that you know what they did is exploited the plaintiffs contract as far as who's employees were up there we don't know they were never identified we don't know who their names are they never testified in court we don't know who they work for if they were temporary employees or program ploys we just don't know source of family income he works for the chiropractor company and has authority to sign checks they bought the building and then transfer title into a l l c more real estate is an illinois l l c to own the building and the practice was going to move into the building mr abdel malik is the only a member of the l l c and when he signed the contract to do it he delivered  to be sure the translation went through correctly but he signed the twenty thousand dollars deposit check this is never an issue at trial this is never a question what would defend it seems to be asking is that the plaintiffs have to if if it's the have to testify to prove that somehow ok trail is money is properly being used for this we know also that it same question would come up in typical construction settings when asked when contractors are paid through construction that's roads which are funded through construction loans that means in order to prove the bridge contract we would have to have all these construction escrow he's the lenders come in and you know all this is a proper transaction and that ultimately led to the payment to a contractor if there's a dispute between el trail and marm or any two people where money is owed that's for another venue with another takes but in this particular case the representative of the plaintiffs signed a chalk in his capacity as employee for el trail and delivered it to the defend that was a deposit what the defendant saying is since it was written by a company other entity they get the defendant gets to keep it because it's not really the plaintiff's money and that's not the issue that's it's not part of  and a breach of contract situation may be they may be something that you want to explore during discovery but it's certainly not something we want to add to the elements of proving a breach of contract disclose that he had a proper license was deceitful and that he intended for them or the plaintiff to rely upon this in signing the contract and getting this contract and once he had this contract he can go up and do what he did and th the trial court's judgment thank you thank you very much mr act justice jorgensen if you have any questions ever basically just one question i'm troubled by the sequence of the fence here in that the defendant here looks at this roof and says you know your whole roof needs to be replaced they parent renegotiate he's just going to repair a part of it but then he said contra gets up there and says you know what we're supposed to do here isn't going to work it's not going to stick it's not going to accomplish the desired end of the contract which is to fix the roof so what other alternative did one who went up on the roof prior to the work beginning also he st came in so we can do this this and mr and the players can back it so we want to make sure it's well done and he actually came back with another proposal which was a little bit more doing a little bit more work and doing a little bit more work and they finally agreed on the contract and that was signed so there was never a prior agreement that they did the whole work done then just stand surely more i should've used the word hole but substantially more work than was done right no i believe that before the the original contract was done any prior contracts were over lesser amount dollar wise you know the only the only that amount that was ever provided to the plaintiff that was greater than the initial contract was the one that came after work that already started now the testimony of the expert was that you can go up there and you don't need to cut open the roof determine if the whole roof needs to be placed you can see the test by walking on it now the sub contractor was never up on there before the work again only mr chiles who was right and in the expert further stated that if you can't tell that way then you hire an engineer who comes out and does a quick stress test you do not cut into the rough because if you cut into the rough you compromise the integrity the st thing that supply the defendant did when he got up on rough is he started cutting the rough and the depth point it's you know there's no turning back the effort he cuts the roof and irreparably damages it and it has to be replaced regardless of what its condition is that he comes to the plate and says oh now you need a whole roof so he's kind of laid it out we're he's giving my client no alternative and there was no there was no testimony well i was going to confuse what wasn't there an early contract of a bid for replacing the tech i'm decking on the entire roof for some eighty thousand dollars in that bid was rejected and then they came to an agreement of signed then there was then there was an ultimate contract and i forget what the amount was whatever it was actually sign the seventy nine dollars or eighty thousand dollars contract was the one that came after the fact ok there was never a big prior to that that your to this defendant said no we don't want just to repair it let's do some other stuff to make sure that it's good that's when he did another proposal that actually increased the price and then he signed that that's what they signed at no point prior to that that he ever that was objected to by defendant as irrelevant and the judge did allow one question and then it ceased after that but the testimony was clear that al trail was going to be moving in there and paying rent and expenses and things like that so  certainly help trail would have no cause of action against the defendant or for the payment made there's no contract relationship there if there was mounds o d two elk trail that would be between trail marr more but again as was testified at trial or consist of two people and that's the husband and wife and that's you know that's the relationship and that and help trail was her only source of family income and that's why this is all the in paid you know trophy for milk trail which was again intended to you know this work the testimony was that he was going to do it updated contract and send it to him it wasn't a change order it was a new contract and the next day he didn't fact send to a new contract which he demanded be signed before work resumes and it also included some other provisions in the contract and that contract was followed by you know an e mail that said hey look range forecast we better you better sign the judge you know saws it as a scare tactic but at the end point is when the plane starts looking in deeper and found and discovered that mr pachachi didn't have the proper license to do this and then they became there was no there was no terminations in fact i think you know there was no terminations there was no you know bright line that said this you know the old contract is dead the defendant refused to continue work under the st contract know come back to the property if they signed the new contract now the defendant during the meeting said i will send you a new contract that you have to sign before we go back up on the roof and that was at the meeting and mr abdul malik purchased the building they then transfer title into mar more real estate l l c which mr elder moloch is the sole member and managed sole member  this is kind of an odd you know this hit the cases it has a as an art history was initially filed by the defendant as a breach of contract against marianne tadg rose personally it was in small bar she appeared and answered and then maher more real estate filed a rd party action in that small claims case which against the defendant and th was was awarded summary judgment that just left maher more as the only complaining party but judge judge french said that she couldn't find the order in the file of a small claims case allowing maher more leave to appear in the case and because of that she felt that she didn't have proper jurisdiction of the case and then she dismissed the case without prejudice to bar moore's rights to refile they i think at that point the entire road had to be replaced because of all the damage that was done by to defend it what he did he brought up he brought a saw this large saw that the cuts die cuts lined up and down the rough that leads the removal the rope he cut all these lines and once you cut the rough regardless of whether it was in perfect condition or need transferred up into the law division so my more did take action the only reason that excess was dismissed is because the order allowing the more to appear can't be located within the file and thirteen i know that yes i understand and i'm sorry i'm sorry  anything to house toppers or for that matter as the judge indicated maybe to the subsequent contractors well if in this case law or more was under an obligation to provide office space to help trail and help trail was i mean even though it wasn't you know what i'm testimony you know the proper would have been that l trail is buried because of improvement and and will occupy and rent and you know much like any any business tenant traped build out and you know of a space for them that's what i'll trail was doing so i'll trail you know advances these funds and never you know within this you know claim between between marmara and the defendant so you know it's much like you know of any any company without borrowing money to do construction it may not be their money because they're borrowing it or it's being advanced on their behalf but it's still you know an obligation that the defendant has to do work the defendant has these funds and that it would be unjustly the fund would be unjustly retched if they're allowed to keep the twenty thousand dollars you know so you know i don't think we i think it's i think it would be a dangerous to require that every plaintive prove the providence of their funds when making deposits on contracts i think that opens up the door to you know expanding what what proofs where are be required in a breach of contract and in this case well who have the burden of proof in this  check on behalf of elk trail dr tatchell says there and they delivered the check and signed the contract all at once so that's what those prove that was never disputed so did m when the contract was signed with house toppers did he sign it with his name or he as president or representative of marmara he signed it i don't i don't well i've got it right in front of me and it just as his name doesn't indicate anything else nor i don't believe marm or is even mentioned on this contract but it was it he did testify that he's the the manager of the building the bill is owned by marmara well he was touched by that he was signing it is you know membership capacity that's an interesting issue what in the record other than your  than mr and i'm sorry i cannot pronounce his last name abdel malik ok other then that testimony indicates that this property's even owned by marmara well there was testimony but there was answer was but in discovery there was there was a lot of discovery issued or exchanged i believe that the deed into marm or was actually presented in discovery so in fact the answer says neither admit nor deny strict proof demanded yeah i did that's i think that's that's then there was something that was done throughout the answer that appears to be just on that one in particular at the beginning anyway all right let's one last question you said that the defendant never intended to do the contracted work because in fact what he did was start on another part of the roof and not the part that is allegedly end of this contract and that is the st deception did the trial court make a finding that that was the deception in fact no the trial court made to find that the initial deception was was the other teams was that he was a proper  please go forward thank you judge a couple of things i wasn't at the trial i'm handicapped just as your honors are all i had before me when i prepared the brief w and a question was posed wasn't there originally a bid for the full amount of the contract representations for or were wholly eroni us that there was i will draw your attention to plaintiffs on exhibit four i'm sorry and that's what when when my client discovered because he's not an expert on tech i'm dechen but when max employees went out there and discovered that was too wavy only then did my client say wait a minute we've got a problem only then did todd draws ording to the trial testimony say the war and only then did my client stop the war was allowed to go back on and complete job they wanted to skimp and just do it partially when they when my client was advised by qualified licensed workers  exhibit is i don't have the number in front of me now counsel makes light of this relationship there has been and why let's disregard the corporate and l l c structures and the building or the attic i don't even know if it did but assuming it did and that was in the record there is nothing indicating that more i gave a rant concession incur damages to the tune of the twenty thousand dollars by virtue of a rent concessions were asked were asked here just ignore the corporate and an l l c structure thousand square feet and it doesn't identify which one thousand seven hundred square feet so there's no way that expert could have discerned which of portions of the roof or to be replaced and finally with respect to replacing was opening up a roof and then closing it up only doing what you can on one day they couldn't even go back on the roof and the next day the materials not only is it now only restriction but real obvious damages are not appropriate either they had they were not disadvantaged as to presenting evidence in my client didn't just run away from the the project he was closedown so there's no no proof of the actual damage there's no proof of consumer fraud and assuming worst case scenario there should be no punitive damages the access of fifty thousand dollars yes your honor still reverse and remain and are reversed outright or alternatively remand for some questions if so what their role is here i was wondering when you raised that for the st time but he did just start arguing that today no no no it was raised in the pleadings where the complaint alleges quote ok thank you all right mr grech i don't have any other questions at this time gentlemen thank you for your argument this morning and thank you for waiting for us while we got got you up and running we will take this matter under advisement we will issue a decision in due course and mr kaplan we will now leave this meeting and take about five minutes to let you get the new meeting established and we will see you then