pham this was on count one of the complaint which was for reaching contract seeking sprint's specific performance of the real estate purchase agreement since it comes before the court on an issue of summary point that we are today i'll insert try to focus my efforts on the he issues the key issues and i believe this court could should should consider taking any questions that you might have one way the issues that were raised by mr graham in his brief on appeal are basically three didn't miss family in dejan fraudulent misrepresentation in inducing did miss child induced mr which judge mark and trust in his order granting the partial summary judgment was whether or not mr fans reliance on mr jones statements was reasonable or justified under the circumstances miss chung has presented cases in quotes cited quotes from cases like the lions piece in goldsmith case which essentially boiled of signing or not he said that looks like my signature i don't remember ever signing in i know i was sick a long time so i think that there is a question in fact as to that particular issue but what we're trying to enforce is the real estate purchase agreement which was signed back in early december and that's in greenock that's at issue is what were his faction and circumstances at that time when he signed that contract that's a contract that they're trying to force that led us to the complaint from not reading a contract or or whatever under certain special circumstances and some of those pieces like stamp and rhoda i would submit that are are similar to the circumstances at issue here believed and trusted the person you know handing him the note and and relied on that and the court found that that in that case his ignorance or his lack of following through and exercising some you know some were l develop it and it's going to make your other property more valuable i'm going to build a factory on it when in fact the whole time he intended to build the junkyard on it and the court again found that under those circumstances that  excused from exercising any additional due diligence because of those special facts and circumstances it was basically a situation where there was an intentional fraud committed upon the party in that case and that was our allegation here that this is more than just an innocent misrepresentation or or even a purposeful misrepresenting misrepresentation it was more along the lines of the pinion puffery this was a s defraud mr pham from his property and the relationship of the parties was like i said it's a long complicated relationship these individuals had been in each other for over ten years they had a long business relationship with each other the nature and extent of their relationship is disputed mr pham says that at some point along the way they developed a internet romantic relationship and he considered mr john his role and he says that the nature of your business relationship changed because of this personal relationship that they were engaged and that he basically turned over the operation of this nail salon business to her because of their personal intimate relationship she says no that's not true he raped me and i a the business relationship changed because this was all part of an agreement that we had all along that he was going to sell me that this is so these facts were disputed and they were never resolved by judge mack in the trial and it's our contention that the nature of this relationship is extremely important to the outcome of this dispute family's reliance on statements by someone that he considered his girlfriend you know a person close to him if you can't trust a person close to you and rely on your statements who can you trust and rely upon they had a long term business relationship a close business relationship she actually paid the mortgage there was at issue here it was her obligation and your in this informal agreement that they had he didn't have anything to do with  basically turned it all over turned said you know here to take care of it so when we talk about did he have an opportunity or should he have known under these circumstances i would submit that his reliance on mr john and her representations was reasonable she waited in well he was out on the town he was in wisconsin a chip chippewa falls where his brother lived working doing some work for his brother he gets a phone call that says you have to sign these papers and we he wasn't told you have to sign a contract and so realistically it was papers and his understanding was that whatever these papers were it was necessary to prevent the bank from you shooting or close your action or somehow taking his property there are statements like the banks went to foreclose banks couldn't put locks on your doors they're going to take your property and again this isn't just this this building isn't just a commercial nail salon it's also his residence where he lives he it's a one story building with a basement and there's no door or any separation and use that basement level as his personal res i've got to stop this and he trusts or this is you know in his mind this is his route for it this is a person he you know who he wouldn't think would be trying to steal his property from him and so there's no time for him to go home there's no time for her to mail him the documents so they arrive at this procedure where he's going to drive to the well are where his brother works and receive a fax so he does only thing that that he knows or that is his understanding is that mortgage is going to come due shortly and he doesn't have the funds to pay it off something needs to be done some kind of refinancing or something needs to be done lived in in the united states for several years in this is not their first language although they both speak english they normally communicate with each other and with others and their nationality immediate needs so their culture is a little bit different than ours but if the answer to your question this is not the only building that he'd ever built or the only building that he had ever bought or sold he had never been foreclosed upon in never you know in real estate and presumably in stock process was well if she has if she's a real estate expert then then he could rely on her to be like you know if i was seeking advice on a medical issue i should be able to rely on a doctor but maybe not on a banker so i'm assuming that that was his thought process but in this case i don't think that that was that was really relevant because the relationship or personal relationship i think when trying anything in this case and the other part of that was miss joan was as i said she was the one paying the mortgage she was the one dealing with the thing the bank representative was a lady by the name of surely before and he trusts her implicitly because of their special relationship and so many and so because of those factors i don't think he i mean my position is connections with the bank about the status of this property so will the parties relative experience and real estate dealings i don't think is is the primary issue in determining whether or  not mr family's reliance what is reasonable or justifiable there are other two other arguments presented to the trial court economic dry as an unclean hands in the court didn't really address as at all as far as the issue of economic the court basically said i don't see anything i don't you know something along those lines with i think around two thousand when two thousand two so maybe ten maybe fifteen years they've been paying on it i'm not sure i'm not sure what you're used to him bought property got it right and there's nothing in the record to support have one thing i do take issue with mr bentley and he made a statement that judge mack there were two hearings on the seventy judge should first time he denied the motion he said it's a close call what i am interested in what i want to know about what i want to hear more about is the degree of real estate expertise that ms chon hat he didn't ask about reasonable reliance in john roll that's not what judge mac's at and you don't have to take my word for it this is all record you can check it was our position that that wasn't the primary issue that the court should have been focusing on that before the reasons that i explained earlier that that was really if not a relevant and minor factor given all of the other circumstances linear aware of all of this well these are all factual issues and mr vance we explained his gershon and why he thought those things happen and why he thought they were important mr pham has a different version of it but those are those are issues that judge mack did not specifically address there weren't any specific findings of fact about this is what i determine the party's relationship to be it was internet it was not mentioned that they had this kind of  relationship they had that kind of mrs relationship those factual issues for never specifically address judge mack basically said i'm finding that mr fancher loans was not reasonable under these circumstances and he specifically is predominantly in my opinion relying on the issue of the degree or level of expertise that miss chung had in real estate  or as i started to mention before there were two other issues before the court which the court didn't really address and that was you can really draw us in and clean hands the standard for economic boom grass was addressed in the case where the cour