and that matter pursuit proceeded arbitration and ultimately the arbitrator issued a substantial award against selling may now they're not so happy with the arbitration system and there they sought to  vacate the arbitration award and moved in district court in the district court in fact bay could be awarded we are now here because we're appealing that determination at the outset your honor i would tell me why why  why the do why the arbitrator did we didn't engage in a manifest just regard i mean it really came down to the period to the retroactive right here he caught that primarily because saying precludes miss weiss from bringing a t c p ph part of the class she has she has and the problem ok yes could you if you're going back to judge walker's question that would be great yes yeah so the problem with class preclusion in this case is that the class notice did not a price miss weiss of the fact that she was waiving rights to sue under the t c p a general release in the class settlement agreement and it's possible we don't know we don't we're not mind readers but it's possible that he did but that's not the issue that is not the issue is not whether the arbitrator made a factual mistake or something of that nature the question is whether there is a purely colorable justification for the arbitration award in the colorable justification is that ms weiss was not given notice in the class notice that she was waiving these rights and the t c p eight there is no indication in the class notice that she was releasing shelly may have any any claim she might have none whatsoever and this circuit has very clearly held that a class notice must a price a class member of any claims and any real the scope of any release she is giving in the class of and there's no mention of of any general release or waiving she didn't receive sufficient notice under the class notice a star who made the determination that it was sufficient the district court in a district that does the washington district court in the class you know is the argument that or address the argument that by the fact that presiding court the court presiding over the class action said the notice was a fashion does that bind the arbitrator in a way that the arbitrator asked to except that otherwise he she is no law no because that's the whole jurisprudence on attacking class action settlements when insufficient notice is given if otherwise no class action could ever be clerical collaterally attack because every class action settlement has has a provision that the class notices is sufficient but it wasn't sufficient it it did not a price or that she was releasing general silly me if the arbitrator find that you found that it was sufficient we would have appealed and that we'd be here as you know  agreement of the parties and you can tell me the parties didn't agree to this was charged with hashing out all of these issues and determining it was a part of that or at least it was foreseeable that the arbitrator would be determining that the notice was insufficient why isn't the appeal here stuck with that determination by the arbitrator but your honor as an initial matter the a fifty nine the proof was conclusive that nabby and provided miss weiss with the required notice of the settlement and of her rights and obligations under the terms of the settlement that's right but  that's not that's not what happened your honor the arbitrator did not look at the release in fact the arbitrator's award doesn't mention the release whatsoever with the arbitrator concluded for him events were before the documents were before him your honor and and we briefed extensively to the arbitrator this issue of the release we made him aware of the wall concerning both the a place ability of the release to the claim and the binding effect of the arthur mr did not apprise miss weiss that she would be that as a result of the arthur settlement she would be implying only and retroactively giving consent for those call miss weiss is claims for the calls made prior to the effective date of the settlement or barred those claims are barred as a result of the arthur settlement release that's what you're saying  contractual provisions was made aware of the relevant law and nevertheless nevertheless ignored those principles ignored those contractual provisions ignored the law and pulled principle of  to use the technical term can screw up the law to refer the well and those who choose to be bound by an arbitrator personal to an agreement that they both signed off on are stuck with that even if you would cases the reason that the the awards are overturned is because the arbitrator ignores express an unambiguous terms of the political contract this is not the case where the arbitrator engaged with the provision of the contract the release here and simply resolved it in a manner that didn't make sense or that we disagree with or applied some different contractual principle principle of contract interpretation what happened here is that the arbitrator was made aware of the a playable law was made aware of the of the of the contractual provision and nevertheless disregarded  of those things and instead resolved the case with respect to the calls made prior to the effective date of the settlement on this notion of implied retroactive consent and that is not and that is not a concept that's even arbitrator applied the law of some other jurisdiction what i what i mean to say is that this notion of implied retroactive consent is not one that as far as i am aware has ever been recognized under the  his argument hinges completely on this idea that the arbitrator somehow concluded that the notice was deficient in some way you you will not find any language in the arbitration award stating that the notice deficient with respect to the general release as i mentioned you won't find the general release mentioned at all what you will find are the statements i quoted earlier earlier from the award where the arbitrator says that the notice was sufficient to apprise miss weiss of the agreement but this isn't just like a contract case where there's a contract and that's all we're looking at here there's also a class notice and that's what the that is what the air pre treat are that's where he correctly interpreted if the arbitrator made some sort of factual mistake if he did misinterpret the the or if he overlooked the agreement that this court has found that more than a mistake of law or clear error in fact finding is necessary to disturb an award and if any justification can be gleaned from the record the award must be concerned in this case there is such a justification because the class notice did not did not inform