progress the contracts between we make appropriate force and the owner of the property there is no confrere between the property owner and on and mr newsome who is a defendant but is not part of th circumstances of the error those terms that are required by the act do create an agency relationship they did not defeat an independent contractor relationship you may still be part of an employee relationship to the sponsoring broker the real estate company would not be beholden to take out the workers comp payments unemployment benefit  none of that is is change this court would not be changing the status quo by recognizing that the licensing act by its terms doesn't create an agency relationship apply the agency relationship the first agency relationship is between the property owner and we managed property short property owner hard to manage partner's forced to sell property remarriage property source don't know what's going again so we should look at something in addition to the independent picture of grief i see the point but in this case the most i've missed something new suit has always worked as an independent contractor and never a government to employ independent contractor ergs or when you're not in the country to be dealing with a ring or employer employee relationship but curious liability attaches to anything that happens in the scope of the employment that's because the express employee relationship or an independent contractor relationship and it lives of all the factors that are looking to that how they are paid out of right to control the method of the work the type of work that it is all those factors where even though one is an independent contractor relationship and there is no control over the means and methods of the work the there still can be a principle an agent relationship i can hire somebody to you know maybe  happiness there's there's drover of jews that have several in contractor realtors working for them so it always has to go through a broker that's that's what the actual act sets up so there is some local level of control you know in point of taking all these actions as a result including the just in letting it go far beyond negotiating the contract and trying to find a curious liability for that that that's where i believe the law you can see it's quite clear that there's nothing lose money in any given sale if you want to you know vital for a whole bunch of potential buyers and have a whole spread of food out there like they do for some really cool residential real estate properties if you can do that and you know you could end up not selling the property he could put a lot of his own money advertising this putting forward other things to try to get the sale going and he has the opportunity to make whatever lose money either doesn't ever come back to remember and that is once again one of the things that we and all of this judgement was not final point for purposes of appeal it was final for purposes of to dish thirteen or more in the washington mutual case gives all the reasoning judgement under any kind of lower bar a lesser standard boiler standard anything else what i asked him to do was take a look at our motion for reconsideration mere fact that we asked the trial court to review responsible position to say you made a mistake and that's why to next thirteen zero one must  substance of the underlying question substantial justice should be to affirm it on the line decision but this movement movement is correct substantial justice is for the