procedural i hear of the case i believe she will agree with my description of this if the problem is there then lawsuits put together there was never any instances in which the any limitation was trial counsel agree with that mr gore wouldn't testify as he did so how can you agree to it the trial court and the complain about what your agreement on appeal stumped i do point out that it was now necessary and you can all earth at least get a flavor from the forty again this is so over away by doctor that it becomes an error of law at issue on appeal are several discretionary on abuse of discretion when you back out there are certain worldlings evidentiary in discovery rulings that are reviewed arbitrarily without implying conscientious to which minute exceeds the bounds of reason and ignores recognize principles of law or number two if no reasonable person would take the us still argues well that the factual conclusions are some of the reaches somehow this transforms something that an issue that the feud under an abuse of discretion standard into a question of law but you must feel as it doesn't stand for that proposition it was an administrative review case and in that case the court had to decide whether the pollution control board which was reviewing an agency decision had erroneous slip by the wrong standard or purview so it wasn't a boor reviewing an agency decision in that case because the regulation gave the board the discretion to decide the issue in court or not testifying on it it's exhaustive we briefed this record is perfectly clear that on appeal the argument is he was a primary witness but in the trial court he said we don't need him moreover i went directly asked by the judge well isn't it fair he's not going to testify to staff that he can't testify at trial and the trial counsel which was not mr mcguire said yeah that's right your honor at trial there was sworn testimony by me of four i have the most information about this case and the events so suddenly on he can't have it all ways you can't go to the trial court and say please don't make this guy to testify come to this court and ask for a reversal they say on the fact that he didn't testify this is a classic and invited error scenario questioning and i believe that the environment agrees that there was no offer proof that there's nothing in this record that shows what would have vishnu who are have testified to it's that no trial is error free that courts on appeal are reviewing courts will only reverse if there is prejudice and if you don't have an offer of proof in this case how do you know what he would have said the witness was on the stand and the questions were posed the objection was sustained but because the the record showed some how that what the answer would have been there was some sort of in e the court said well you don't really need and offer a proof in that instance but that's not our circumstance here i'd like to just make a couple line his cardiologist said her deposition and explain the problems so it's not really fair to argue that not having him testify was unfair given the fact that it was his position that he could not but in any event there was no prejudice because as of products at that point was already defending the case on the basis that he one of two was known to bypass it not by  this was a dispute over inventory because this wasn't raised in the opening brief i didn't provide the record sites i built today there was a dispute over inventory located at markets and it was resolved deaths after that this is record to seventy four dash eighty nine three seventy three dish seventy six seven sixty eight dash sixty nine seven eighty dash there's a lot of si sends an email and says let's settle there's no response but once the reply of an action had been filed gore accepted her offer this is our ninth twelve desh thirteen and six twenty five dash twenty seven i never proved that acid products agreed to pay poly for the entire cell not only did they not prove that there was an agreement but there's also evidence in this record to support the finding  november of two thousand and eight and i'm for them to succeed on the third count of other of their third amended our claim which was filed in september ah of a way and that count was for interference with prospective economic advantage they would have to prove they have the right to sell consequently the pollen had no right to bring across the action based on that formula we agree again it seems to be that they should've been derivative of oh what she called her product clean one zero two and she couldn't take the chance they out one or the other of those events  as a consequence of that she entropy to protect her truth secret right in the form of air and there was no evidence all general because school necessary which means that there are potential situations in which it is or is way to earth not necessarily testify supposedly was because of his his hell is hell in a cruel or what i mean but now i have i don't understand what argument can now he may when