that must be accepted as being true of we don't even eat sworn affidavits they are accepted as true then we have the opposing counsel standing up and saying rather they're not true so wrong and nor does the motion to dismiss preserve the cord with any competent evidence calling into question the veracity of our allegation saying that we sent out piece of these  confirmations there is no basis under the law whatsoever for granting our gittoes motion to dismiss in this case and it's not just a procedural matter it's a sub confirmations and you have to come forward with something some cup of evidence supporting that notion now there's also a number of other reasons of word for overturning  have the opportunity to engage in discovery and take a look at their business records which i would imagine will be that will shed some very great bright light on whether these confirmations were actually received or court now if you're if you're arguing that the arbitration clause is somehow faulty there's some flaw there fine that is it issue for the trouble that's on that space only issue before this court dismiss as you know in addition to the initial confirmation topflight sent out a number of additional acknowledgements boeing this contract these one was the original contract was formed in june two thousand and ten we sent out a confirmation of yan second one is supposed to member two thousand and ten and yet another one in november two thousand and ten we look at those confirmations and they're right in the appendix to our brief and you'll see that they identified that only the commodity but the quantity the price delivery date it's everything we need to confirm these contracts now opposing counsel has argued that end merely alleging that the allegations in a complaint are untrue without any supporting documentation and where those allegations are not said whether that pm is the reason that you have focused on those particular refused because at least in my view they seem rather were they seem very important to me as well roger and i think that if we have a chance to develop this case those reasons point any comment i make as to the reasons why we're focusing on the june tenth contract as opposed to a read form version of the contract which occurred in march two thousand and eleven anything i say on that is says basically counsel obviously i've heard my own remarks but i'd like to hone in on the question of the justice of it justices of asked to try to clarify real quick here first of all justice turner i don't think there's any question the judge was aware of tabor the judge was concerned about the lack the same day and offer to sell an agreement by top flight to purchase such a train as me now nowhere in there does it even put it in the context of this case no where did the plaintiffs when they filed their complaint and brought this case said we even did it in this case we follow this custom in this case even if you accept the proposition from the top flight didn't have to identify a specific person that went to a specific box at a specific time and sent it individually you still have to have some facts in the record that would indicate that there were liable basis for alleging that a confirmation was sent in this case and there is no there is just that blanket we usually send it out of these types of cases and just spoke in regards to your comments on the  sure as the court well knows that a party can contest of course arbitration clause assumes a binding and a forcible contract and in this case if we were to proceed that would be an issue that would be a question  a party has a right to challenge arbitration or challenge the validity of the flaws up front in the trial or if the problem from the term is that there is an agreement to consent to binding arbitration then the face would go to binding arbitration in the party would get to have the right to seek review after the fact so i just wanted to address those two concerns up front argument i think is very simple this is a two six nineteen motion to dismiss that was granted by a judge freeze under what the court will apply in this case will transplant their judgment for the trial and i think this or will have to review the complaint in the evidence in the same way to jeffrey's did and we likely reach the same conclusion uniform commercial code statute of frauds applies to this case so the problem here is that we have no reliable written confirmation and that notice wasn't sent within a reasonable period of time so it's a let's start we  legit contract with the point where they say there was a green contract or this or that was occurring contract between the parties for one hundred thousand the sale of honor thousand bushels of corn by a certain time what we know as a matter of was otherwise provided in this section the contract for the sale of bush for the price of five hundred or more is not a forcible by way of action or defense unless there was some writing sufficient indicate that the contract for sale has been made by the parties so in this case we know that doesn't exist in the country so if we look further then we have to look and see if there are some other written confirmation or information that would give mr williams a notice that top flight believe this was in the  contracts that may have existed between him and top flight so there's a confirmation provision within a reasonable period of time writing in confirmation of the contract and sufficient legally sufficient is received by the party receiving it and has reasonable notice of his content then that may satisfy the requirement i just read you the affidavit from top flight that no place in this record an yes to be legally sufficient yes identify facts and circumstances that would be sufficient for the court to determine there was a reliable confirmation that was sent in the form of that confirmation and so forth and i think your honor that face that fails on two respects the other problem is that if the summaries were sent and there's no reliable information that would work and there's no reliable information that they were legally sufficient but even if the summaries were sent they don't include material terms that would be really important final issue here that we've indicated that there is no signature on the contract and we do not believe that some reason notices or proper under the statute or fraud legally sufficient were sent out or more importantly there is more you know information thousand and two i think their brief may be in error when it indicates that the confirmation was sent on in june two thousand and twelve i'm sure they mean two thousand and ten but all you have is the provision i read that would indicate that in the normal course of business what they would usually do is send a notice out the same day with no evidence in this case whatsoever that it applies to this case there appears to be a prof summary without a date or if there are two different summaries i believe in august one doesn't have a date one but one doesn't have a price choose me and one doesn't have a readable price and these are sent out in august two thousand and ten and top flight can't even be specific about when they were sent they simply pleased that it was sent sometime in two thousand which is some seven months after the election contrary i realize the case law in illinois goes in a number of places in terms of under the statute of frauds what the definition of reasonable to define as you have defined it in case th court didn't want to adopt the frightening test in this case there are seven months that a lapse of before top flight sends out this year in summary that even if sufficient is seven months into the dismiss this case out of six one nine motion even though the plaintiff has said they say now what they've identified as exhibit number eight which does by the way have the terms that are room managers for top white that there was no reliable information that this document before you which i concede rather rapidly would have been very sufficient helpful as all the terms as the price we would have reasonable notice that they believed an agreement  listens and then says but they never said that they actually did it well they did not in that paragraph go down to the next one paragraph six which states are or about june tenth two thousand and ten r j w offered so  on or it's just paragraph seven on or about june eleventh two thousand and ten top flight issued futures only grain purchase confirmation dated two thousand and ten to june tenth two thousand as of paragraph  of that statement is taken as true you cannot allow of a defendant to merely say well i don't agree i think it's untrue and that's sufficient to dismiss our complaint it just doesn't make sense we claim that the there's a lack of reliable evidence well isn't that a question of fact it's also of hornbook law the motion to dismiss and that would be granted where there