out of the oven fire before it began operations to keep it from exploding the commercial i mean that was sold by the defendant to the black for basically did not have one of these and it was  question is not does the statute apply to the defendant but is it meant to protect the plaintiff and i believe the course choice of from whose perspective to look analogy if you had a rule that there had to be trigger locks on weapons if they're kept within one hundred feet of a school in your house that doesn't mean that  purpose that's the test now our argument is basically and has been from the very beginning that and of this that cannot be you because it does not have a required safety devi your theory absolutely right her trust if you're selling them something that doesn't have a protective device to keep it from exploding and you buying it explodes then you bought something that was a rule that is sometimes applied that if the party bringing the appeal does not present sufficient material whether by virtue of argument or record to demonstrate the correctness of their arguments them they can't her fail in other words that the person running the appeal has the responsibility to bring a sufficient portion of the record to demonstrate where the mistake was made by the trial court is there any sufficient basis on the record if the court disagrees i'm not in a position right now based on the absence of what judge fletcher indicated is not in the record take issue with the fact that if it's not in the record in this court believed it must have that in order to  our who decided what they wanted the size what they were willing to pay they wanted it used he contacted the bakery bakery said your partner he contacted certified to say this is what i'm looking for sort of  think we have one and he then picked it up just as a sort of buy i got it in pieces on pallets and he's the one that took it back to the bakery with his employee and installed it without any help any assistance or any advice from a certified with one exception somewhere during the installation process there was a question about what sort of caulking to use in putting it together there was nothing about any safety issue or the functioning of it anything like that in fact oven what brings us here today is to contentions by charter of the insurance company for that paid a bit of money for property damage there is no personal five that the violation of the washington ministry of code regulation could be considered as evidence of negligence as you pointed out during charter argument that went back as well as  regulation govern the conduct of certified in buying and selling used quit meant therefore it would have been wrong for the trial court to have given such an instruction because the instruction is not  that you may use this as evidence of negligence in general but that the argument would have been that certified was in violation of this regulation and therefore the jury could find that this is evidence of negligen certified we submit that none of those regulations out of that chapter apply to the certified as a seller of used big recruitment even it was a seller of new equipment they don't apply the trial court properly did not give that was plaintiff's proposed instruction thirty three and it read in its entirety the violation if and of a statute ordinance or administrative rule is not necessarily negligence but may be considered by you as evidence in apply here ok i misunderstood what you were trying to say earlier i must have misspoken i'm sorry about that no it was a standard correct statement of the law if the law applied because what it was saying is the violation therefore the jury would have to find a violation and how can certify violate a regulation that does not apply to it so that's why we think that the court properly did not get that instruction out if there were if there were evidence apart from the regulation that the regulation although not applicable describes a general standard in the industry of how something should be configured have sold what sort of instruction would follow from that i do not think that it would have been simply the instruction the violation the statute in the coaching part of the regulation which is what ordinarily would would be it would be something more like a statement that this sets forth a standard of the instruction to the jury about this particular where and how it could be how the violation of that could have anything to do with a certified scan that if certified is not bound to follow that regulation about and says well we've got this regulation it's a good standard of care because of the safety item question is is that enough to get the case to the jury i said here's the difference with that the the national fire protection association sort of an industry organization of certain people it is not a governmental body none of their standards at least but the only ones i would know about would be in washington and it's not adopted in washington a finding regulation but whether it describes a standard that should be applied in selling arms to makers i think the reason it does not that that standard also applies to the design and manufacture primarily to the design of those things and certified is not a designer so it gets back to the issue of whether the seller of use the equipment is required to sell only that and in its entirety every single piece that may be required to meet some other industry type standard of clickable to persons other than those selling those that you don't have any obligation if i'm buying the evidence or the pretense of having to do these certain things you don't have to meet my requirements because you're going to use dumb and well the standard with respect to what constitutes a merchant lower when you're talking about used equipment than it would be if it were new and we've cited cases to that effect and i think what you're getting to your honor is something about a particular transaction between two particular people where there is some discussion and perhaps negotiation over precisely what is being looked for and the purchaser's desires for the functioning of that which really gets more towards the implied warranty of fitness for a particular if it's only an implied warranty of merchantability merchantability yes and it doesn't matter that you're selling pieces as opposed to the whole product i think that does a little bit because that  they thought they were mine and i haven't and you thought you were selling an option and it had all the features to be and happen and in fact we submit your honor that it was it operated for two or three years from when it was manufactured until the unfortunate explosion well it is true it was sold in pieces i believe the record shows that we thought it was it had all of the pieces necessary as perhaps did  frankly the new ones come that way as well that it's just comes on pallets and you put it together because these things are rather large but with respect to whether something is merchantable we believe that the law says that it and what that is that it must pass without objection in the trade to a significant number there was absolutely no evidence whatsoever in the record of plaintiff's case which is the one that it would have to be since they have to meet their burden of proof to avoid that directed verdict there was no evidence in the record to suggest that of and would have been objected to by a significant enough number of purchasers indeed the only evidence in the record is that it was manufactured without it it was went through three purchases without any objection so there is simply no evidence from which you can infer i don't believe even mr lewis saying from some experience that he might have that he knows that this would not have passed without objection in the trade or that there would have been people that objected to it so that's one of the bases for supporting the directed verdict is they did not meet the their burden of proving that it that was dismissed without prejudice because we can assert that as an alternate ground which we do hear there was a complete release with the longest scription of everyone who's being released by the settlement and it included retailers and distributors and we think we fell within that now charter response on that is that there is a special definition for distributors and certify does not fall within that well the release document to which charter of was a party did not define what was meant by  argument which was pretrial as well at the time of trial first of all the evidence that was presented to the court came from mr lewis that was the universe of evidence presented to the court and that is part is there anything in mr lewis has to story that goes beyond the statement there this is the safety device these are the fire protection standards and it's nice to have a safety device on there but i believe his testimony was to standard that all said this given its size and how it was power should come with a safety device it did not the safety device was one of the components that should have been sold that when assemb