corporations are involved in this case i don't know you don't know i don't know that i counted but many these are all individual corporations they were all individual responsibility for these three leases in tennessee men's law firm showed that anthony to move she was not an officer director or owner of the corporation even though that secretary of states and information indicated that he was the ninety six did not say that  make any finding that that testimony that there was a mistake that it was not credible but i would suggest trying under cross appeal to the bronx state sever that they have a repeal of with a ruling with respect to successor development how those corporations which are i think it the corporations by the surviving brother there how they came to actually succeed have submitted how the succeeding brother became the principal in these leases that it regionally had been involved that involved the ball in any way had been under was now the course is that he formed were not successor corporation correct they were what they were new actually two new entities but how did they get title to what was called by the corporations that sell it for the corporations which sell to form only had a lease they did not own real estate after self that i is where don't determine she did not want to do the deals so the issue is like any business deal the c d s want to continue with the deal and do wish store sold the brother the third party defend it was decided i'll do it you don't want it i'll do it i'll put my money  the real estate and like any lease you can't have a lease until you have real estate so that's what he did well was there any consideration for the assignment of  not that i'm aware the testimony in the record was that the widow did not want the transaction and so but i would so i don't even understand why was there any necessity for a lease assignment started the deal didn't want to do it and then another person came along and said i'll make the deal they'll that is not an issue really in this case that that's a question t not apply and yet repeated both in the viability order and the damages order the trial court goes back to the contract as a basis for liability it makes no sense if we're going to have an unjust enrichment claim which is the only claim that mr weinstein's estate prevailed on then the contract is out the window yet from the of the order that's the basis for liability entitle to compensation it makes no sense ok he rejected successor liability police up but i think right now because that was the best there was no there was no evidence that there was a common shareholder pounding officer between whatever the original r v s were and the leases or more importantly the move she realty l t v that's the entity that had the contract with ok and the third party defendants now that's where we need to focus because that is the party with whom bronstein had the contract and so you have that absolutely contradictory the terminations by the court that the contract doesn't apply yet paragraph three paragraph seven nine thirteen the all goes back to the contract as far as i can tell the law in illinois has not changed that if there is an express contract you cannot have a claim for unjust enrichment let's generally true well i'm not aware of any exceptions to that and end of the contract is then out the window agreement he is entitled to be compensated based upon just enrich makes no sense absolutely no sense and i would get back to the issue of what was lost weinstein was a real estate broker and therefore get a ten percent interest in the deal but that's not that does not go to the issue of what was you ask me what is the contract say but a for a typical real estate broker doesn't get that deal purchase of real estate that's exactly what quantity of debt that's exactly what he said he did he had made it in his evidence deposition that he acted as a real estate broker there's no doubt right then called broke with him that's the case that mr pliocene cited in his brief if you if you have a whole roper deal with someone ok but he did he never there's no evidence that that  he didn't with all due respect he didn't address the issue directly he just said under pair breath for one rendering services under the agreement which he said doesn't apply in tennessee and virginia w if you want to go to the facts your you head out the admission of mr borenstein that he was acting as a broker and that to me negates any right compensation under any theory whatsoever out the window now back to me unjust enrichment claim besides the fact that there were that the court repeatedly relied on the contract as a basis for this because of this is that we cited in the briefs argument which we did you establish that there was some kind of a contractual arrangement between your client and his deceased brother with respect to the successor let's strike the word successor i know you don't like that the corporations that tony formed in order to complete the steel did you assert any kind of a contractual arrange own lawyer from a legal point of view you don't want to be a success or a corporation no because then they just might have a cause of action against the successor corporation correct ok but beyond the fact that i don't want t of what lawyer really does normally except the plaintiff's lawyer there isn't a basis to be a success ok because then what's wrong with their unjust enrichment aside from the fact that he's a real estate broker the night those claims that's not the subject of cross now the modest case says there must be a duty must be a duty of oh by the defendant to the plaintiff in an unjust nothing by his own admission in reliance upon anything with a third party that they didn't even exist he didn't work for him he never talked to them he didn't do a thing in his life in reliance upon anything said or done by third party defendants which only makes sense because they had nothing to do with the transaction until after he quit after the brother died and it's all after the sister in law said i don't want the transaction and none of that was refuted most of that is the admissions of mr  reliance and weinstein by his own admission says i never did anything in reliance on that now on the damages play but i don't know how the judge really came up with the damage cla other then he took the highest to lowest numbers and decided to come out with come up with a number and i think that if you look at the two cases that we cite are three cases champagne county first being the best one is that in this kind of case the measure of damages is the reasonable value of services good for by mr weinstein and we had an expert at trial testify about that and the maximum recovery under any theory and want a patient of reasonable value of services was up out one hundred twenty five thousand dollars but we haven't even gotten to the amount of money which bronstein received in which the trial court refused to consider another error as far as we're concerned so in this case it's really no different than any other case where there's a world her or somebody like in that position bronstein claims he did some work he says he didn't get paid and this case is to get hey our problem is we shouldn't have to have yet i don't see how that is we are appealing the trial court's to judgment or within the judgment orders within the arguments at trial i the set off the fence if you that's what you want to call it or whether you call it a set off with the fact that the court must consider that money which weinstein received and did not pay back in it's damage calculation so if it's a set off it's an affirmative defense but it doesn't have to be a set up it must be considered in the damage calculation because you have a person saying i didn't get paid for procuring these real estate transactions yet the to this when you're saying that a successor and all but that determination doesn't make sense because in the liability order the court without a proper basis  believe found that a third party defendants were in fact some kind of successor or related entity he uses that language himself he does believe i feel it and yet when we get to the another entity and then it went out so it was that first assignment which got attacked in the trial court and that was a written assignment and the party who executed the assignment was not my p but the successor in charge of the corporation decides that the particular underlying agreement that led to you owing me some money for developing that they're no longer interested and they just abandon that's their stay a bandit that's never been reported in this case says that the well maybe it has maybe it has but let's assume for the time being that it is not read by did that the original corporation to which i entered into an agreement with decides not to pursue the deal after one of the principals in the corporation and they just and somebody else comes along know because mr dozen motions to dismiss or motions for somebody cheshunt then maybe we'll see what happens but in the till until but you're not going to get a time out this is this is unjust which he is receiving the ten percent that he knew that michael don't lie so now they come in with an unjust enrichment claim saying there's no contract and yet their liability claim and their damage claim based on the contract cannot apply if we're going to have a theory of unjust enrichment however if you're going to go back to the contract and say well ok ten percent then that ten percent the right to ten percent is predicated infect he went so far as to say i did not read the money i did not have the money and so you have a person who had no money to pay the ten percent and not only did he not have the money he owed by his own admission we there are three hundred grand two hundred sixty eight grand or one hundred four great he never did what he was supposed to do to get a ten percent if you're going to apply that term second thing is to get that ten percent it's my intention to do these deals all that's like a letter of intent so you do what you're supposed to do pay your capital contribution and present the deals in writing w recklessly time you're out business the other thing has quit he quit in june one thousand ninety six and that agreement says once that agreement is terminated no ten percent so there was nothing that allowed him to get that ten percent by the terms of the contract and i've got to go back to one that this idea that somehow the third party defendants did something wrong to get the deal the idea of abandon your honor as i read those cases they say specifically there must be some fraud undue influence or direct us we don't have that here now yet mr bernstein thought that third party defendant abandonment so to the extent that back we need to focus on what happened the unrefuted testimony is a painter and counsels thank you both the case will be taken under advi