as the claims on timely under the terms of the bonds in illinois law i think this case is sort of the whole market example of the elevation of form over substance where practical considerations and expressed terms are of a statutorily compliant bond were totally disregarded and ignored by the circuit court when it chose instead to actually imply language from the statute into a separate  as one bond or two bonds and that's it and ultimately i think the distinction in calling it one bond to bond is this thing to bonds is a distinction without a difference when you look at the actual terminology of the bonds the purpose of the bonds the purpose of the bond act and the four corners of the document that was presented inference in these projects so as an example the bond that itself requires  a bond to secure the contractor's completion of the work of the bonded contract that was a new two with the on the bond act also requires sufficient surety a bond requires the owner to provide notice of an intense declared that contract or in the fall then satisfy other conditions that are expressed conditions on the owner in her breast three of that bond and then only articulated and these are the policies that been underlying this bond that ferd for a while now but just recently articulated by the supreme court number one is to protect the tax monies for the keep more of the state of illinois to ensure that they're used for completion of projects when projects are incomplete because of the faltering some of the contractors and number two was to ensure payments to subcontractors and suppliers want to highlight that because of what we're actually what this court is going to be asked to do today with respect to affirming or reversing any ruling by wall will actually have a significant policy impact in the illinois holder construction industry practice although it's not part of the record bed while we're talking about this issue is there is a practice with regard to for example subdivision bonds where it is a it is certainly a performance guarantee that is sure you may underwrite it is certainly  i covers both completion and in obligations a bond that does not require any or include any time limitation for an owner to bring a performance claim against the contractor for completion of the project none whatsoever for that is the general for your construction the statute of limitations the whole pile or the bond that doris while silent as the completion playing sim performance claims it does contain a one year one station period the exact same limitation period different time limitations that may be a portable and there are probably very good reasons that can be articulated for that with respect to owners who need additional time to complete projects to determine warranty obligations at cetera before bring suit as opposed to points who know that they're on paid for their workers but the fact is that the bond that recognizes that distinction and recognize the difference in those two lines the thing that i would add is the claim the one that is to be  bottle thank you position that the circuit court probably term that summary judgment should be entered in favor of the trustees of young contributions the planes they administer under the terms of the performance bond covering these projects and  primarily focus upon the arguments that were made by the council today and the remaining items are dealt with in our brief and nationally there was some question raised in the world argument on december fourteenth two thousand and seven and the issue notice had not been willing to get at all in the circuit court and i don't believe was even raised in the initial opening brief in this case  aren't really that the central issue i think in this case is the lake county raining case and on the question of whether they exist to whine or to bonds with respect to this ma you paid attention and you read over the decisions of the circuit court the circuit court was very careful to wait until this issue head deposed and evidence was finally submitted to the circuit court only at this time did the circuit court determine yes these are two separate bonds and that potentially lake county raiding should apply separately to each bond position it very simply that this case it is controlled by the lake county grading because each bond in this case appropriately must be considered to include the payment language that that is involved here what hearing our position with respect to that is the language of the statute says each such bond without making that distinction then the supreme court never did make that the station between cases where you have a payment bond a performance pod it simply said each binder mess language that's involved in the statute in the language that the supreme court introverted and so they're your opponent highlights that one phrase in lake county payment bond dead simply the performance find in this case it was very clear from the outset that the assertion and the claims were made in this case on the base of the performance bought me did not go against payment bond in this particular matter because in this case two bonds were written they were separate the statute requires that and allows us to rely upon the same inclusion of payment language in both the performance bond and the payment bond and basically it would be up to those who refuse bonds if this is a concern simply to consolidate for example in the one bond including the different limitation perio portion but the tradition the facts that were presented were demonstrated that there were two separate bonds and under the statute no those who are attempting to rely upon the bond are entitled for a while on the terms of the not specifically familiar with bat and they always seem like the equitable principle that should be followed here but in this case we we show this to simply rely upon the simpler proposition that the there were two separate language that's involved here we basically are entitled to rely upon bad language in that stand she didn't determine that yes we have this performance bond on which we do have a one they could extend for a two year of a contract which illinois considers these bonds a contract by just going up case five to seven and then implying in reading in a provision for more favorable turns they were intended to inure to the benefit of the owner i mean so it does get to that point and and its reliance on strict interpretation in lake county bringing up a bond that all the court records and not identify or state that there is an inconsistency in the bond that itself and that in this case i think you have to be each of the security obligations as part of the total as part of the whole the whole document the four corners of this agreement page one through seven which contain a security provision for only some is fear of the provisions pr for subcontractors and suppliers they may contain different limitation periods but there are good different limitation periods for different types of claims for different types of claimants so it's entirely it's i mean it's it's inconsistent they have a payment bond that protects them from claims in the amount of the contract and they have a performance upon the protects them in the amount of our of the contract from any completion issues so we are really talking about is in the