good morning they please the court my name is edward o'connor on the attorney for the eclipse group with the balance just start up by saying that the contract in question is a class a joint and several agreement there is nothing in this agreement on the four corners which in any way indicates that there is a separate independent portion of the liabilities for the to pay or the contract makes it the to pay or as are responsible for unreasonable for the this report to have concluded that the parties intended for target in k mart to pay a corresponding portion of the settlement now was to response of the st is it doesn't matter what it was reasonable that was their intent it's not specified  match and so what both of you wanted to say it doesn't say so then my understanding is you know it's hard for me say that it wouldn't be  in california anyway you can look up for all evidence anyway right where you can look at it to resolve an ambiguity you can't look at it to change the terms or add anything to the content which is that i want to tell you something there are sorry go ahead no go ahead this was for all evidence submitted by hardin to supported position never an indication that we agree to it so what controls just the writing and that's the brill evidence for that once and it's also in our contract the immigration laws once they've written it me as odd that the right targets already paid quite a bit of money and there is we're talking about one hundred and forty thousand dollars even though i don't know how much each of the or spending on attorney going on it's just curious to me that i bet the attorney both of us more than one hundred and forty thousand dollars now and it's going to be more than that after and it just seems to me after you i apologize thank you all right mr state your appearance and tell me tell me why you get to talk to  background against which contracts are made when you when lawyers draft a contract they know what the laws regulating contracts and then i look at what the settlement agreement  eclipse and while the may receive their payments in one or more payments from target and or k more now when i put that together with the statutory presumption i think the lawyers know perfectly well that the presumption several they write a contract that says that it's when we directed toward the total collective and how it should be distributed between eclipse and lobban now there's not a word in there about how it should be distributed between targeting kmart even though the grassman all know that the presumption is that several where the contract expressively speaks to portions puts it in terms of showing that the money may not come in in one dollar check it may come in in two checks which obviously means that the settlement in principle emails drafted by target council doesn't match the dance the final agreement so if i don't understand why it's such an important turn it was not included in either don't disagree about your honor but i think the the the requirement acknowledge that they understand that each one of us has a portion is enough to revive the weak presumption in fact what if what if we don't agree bankrupt and is now not r t this anymore but certainly i don't even see why it's an issue i don't see why we would there be any decision i mean it's pretty common in personal injury cases involving multiple parties for the defendants to agree to pay the plaintiff the total settlements and it's not a plaintiff's business how the defendants agreed to divided up among themselves as the defendants but they're for who winds up paying the money the defendants can fight among themselves that's how it always works and every lawyer knows it and if you're going to make it the plaintiff's problem to hold a particular defendant instead of the defendant's end up in a contract you know i think this one did end up in the contract because it's i don't i don't understand something there what you just explained to us quakes a very clear that you want that a limitation so the contract why doesn't that cut against your side i mean what you're saying is it's fair we should only pay two thirds i made it very clear to the other side we only wanted to pay two thirds we were only willing to pay two thirds and then  deal doesn't say that it seems to me that makes it worse for your argument instead of better because we know that that possibility was put on the table by you and you didn't get it in writing but we also have the other side claiming that they they wanted to have joint military they were abundantly aware of the presumption they didn't include it and they actually admit in their opening brief twenty one and twenty two that they intentionally stayed quiet on it because they were relying on then the wrong presumption which is a stronger presumption and they figured that would kick in and they didn't want to raise it because they knew we'd never agree to it so we have vats i would hold on one sec where your over time but let me find out of my colleagues question i'm ok i'm ok then we've taken you over time and your time stop thank you thank you and