had remains a party to provisions that pertain to mitt and i know in the lower courts we'd argue a little bit about that wing which i mean where it says that there's an assignment during the term of the contract that had nevertheless remains and the and then if you trace through that i think there's a series in two thousand and then there was a it was renewed i think each year i mean it's an automatic renewal and then in two thousand and four there was a five year contract term the needs one of those are renewed the existing happed contracts the provisions of existing have contracts except for specific things that modify and in two thousand and four the only things i did the things that would be modified through these agreements were very the contract price the rental price the amount of the reserve account that have set aside there are certain will just cool things were modified each contract term but the that the other provisions were there was never really a non renewal of the toward changes distributions and in p t default so with that wing which from the policy guide from the secretary i think there's evidence that having tended to be balanced by the removal agreement i what i'm saying is that where you have an express contract it excludes the existence of an in flight and that on that well that was because it covers the said that express contract covering the can find that there is an express contract covering the apartments at issue right with the state and i understand that but that we're talking about a contract between her and in in normandy what you pled what you bring to us your appeal i just i'm left thinking about why didn't you pursue other theory just specially a third party beneficiary to to the agreement between oklahoma and hud the we we can all tell you that when we first went into this we we were expecting to be able to stand on our on our own internationalization ship and not you know we've always thought all along that we were the we had contractual probably would have been and it wouldn't necessarily go that far and i understand as i understand it the way that these payments and work through that there was a there's a contract that are the beneficiaries of that contract and that they were made for the for the for the benefit of the low income tenants and not necessarily for con you know to the project owners and you just happen to be a conduit question ok all the things that disturbs me is is that it looked like your client was trying in pretty good faith to improve the property by placing views that normandy tried to appeal to the reacted inspection system and then kind of got a cold shoulder but there was a contract and they were trying to provide there was a contract under for those ones to be repair into by normandy and the oklahoma housing and finance already not had to have to go in the same quest wasn't the government to stop from arguing that this is not a contract issue it's having moved the case to the court of federal claims almost premise how can you know argue that that was incorrect isn't there an obligation of the government to follow him to correct law and rely on it reply brief chose not to move forward with its a p a claim in the district court and chose to instead file a complaint in the court of our claims the government had informed the tenth circuit of this court's decision on cisneros and other other decisions such as national least housing corporations the united states those decisions which are presidential founded that it's been settled for some time that funding supervision of h have a contract below your argument there is a contract through there are any breach of contract you can only assume in the court of several players go to federal claims and now surely you see we don't belong here i'm not a party to this case came to federal circuit it pointed out that that jurisdictional problem with the transfer to the courts on claims and having having seen the court's decision upholding that the government was the party to the contract i believe in the district court litigations the government i believe that it was a party to the contract however in in this case in normandy vs the court the trial court noted i wasn't going to ask the same question that the judge knew and asked one of the things that disturbs me is what i raised with your opposing counsel and that's the question of the windows and it disturbs me because a it looks like the apartment owner was acting in good faith from the record that they were trying to improve the system that the windows which inspection timing and notice regulations it's noted that they aren't need not follow those requirements when it feels it must take any action to protect the was in compliance with inspection requirements and it stated that it could not as a as normally as counsel pointed out there were many other problems outside of the windows the inspection report which is at appendix eight nine teams notes in inspect insect infestation it notes health and safety problems such as missing smoke detectors inability to access windows as a means of providing access from an apartment so there are many problems that have led to a failing score which in the about third party beneficiaries the court found in chad narrows to that sixteen after twelve zero four at twelve and that the tenants would be considered third party beneficiaries if there were any they all point out that this two tiered system where hide has supervision and inspection responsibilities and p h a such as ofa make our payments is accepted considering whether there could be privy of contract between hyde and a property owner when a p h a was the party that entered into the contraflow so if it's your view that there's no way that th that that hose policy manual claims that it's it's a it's already with it policy manual it should not be considered it's extrinsic evidence it's unnecessary for interpretation of the have contracts because be found from the terms of the contract and the move on to the question of the use agreement and the alleged implied in fact contract again the court would normally voluntarily relinquish the very very claims were later taken normandy is complaining that after the receiving the benefits of its agreement with hyde through the use agreement that had holding actions that it took because they were necessary to from tech tenants from conditions that weren't decent safe and sanitary and as for norm these restitution claim again that was not hundred thirty seven and twenty four c f r ninety two that don't include any requirement of payment they're simply declarations of policy and statements of general information about the section eight program kansas city and what had the power to balance the government the signatory to the to the previous have contracts for the oklahoma and have wires on who reported to to mr it was after the contract of executed but i think it again it goes to show the mutual intent and understanding of the parties as a relates to that that two thousand four half renewal so we we we think that the  programs so while normandy concedes that it gave up the simple rights it does not agree that it gave up all right particularly as it relates to those contracts so the so we think that the thousand i think we're out of the statute and the but i think that the court to find you know the opposing counsel mentioned meetings in the i disagree somewhat with the argument that you have to mandating source would be the same money mandating statute that off right to have payments if you in the record there is a addresses that if had does abate the section eight payments have payments that he can use those fines to relocate the tenants in this case it didn't relocate the tenants it took a while to relocate or switch to vouchers and that source as a fund for the have payments would be the source for any restitution or repayment because the tenants were still residing in heaven sent a letter saying you cannot raise the rent the tenant portion of the rent even though we're not paying