designed to make sure that the seller of blueberries or whatever is going to get paid even though the blueberries you know may have may rot down the road but here they d paid right they got the money from the purchaser the person who gets the blueberries in hand and now you want to get your hooks on that money right it's not the poor it's not that the poor seller the real seller i understand you have you have a sort of legal constructs but isn't the the things that you just raised or a way to make sure that the farmer who whether we have the rights of unpaid so we're simpler helsel help me here i thought of the way i read your argument is that you had two arguments one of them is that because of your financing arrangement we'll call it you really are a seller because you have this business where you know you get certain rights your nd argument is that they have speech has the packer rights but they have assigned them to you my wrong i thought you had a rather distinct you're absolutely right judge barnes ok and that the the argument is based fundamentally on a distribution agreement that  and as a result of their have the arrangement the parties have the transaction documents are in the record that show that there is a transfer of rights if you will of the confirmation of those rights and furthermore bankruptcy all the time people end up with money from this different sources and they as my profit used to say wasted in riotous living they don't have the money and then the people like judge they're getting some form of ownership to those to those pallets if you will and that's the source of the claim here it is it is it is commerce in pro or perishable commodities and that's where it comes from the disposition of this case and we think that own to say that that speech therefore lost title before the receipt of funds and so many of them could not convey anything to produce very is not consistent with the realities not consistent with honour's kind of doing behalf of the trustee year of speech farms that get beingness seller supplier is the key that unlocks the door of the pack of trust so i think this case really can be distilled down to the question did produce pay supply or sell produce to speech worms and i think that answers a clinic with a quick no they supplied quite a bit of cash but not one ounce of produce and therefore the bankruptcy court was right to deny their pack of joy boggs talked about the two arguments that the pros pay advances i think what i just said kind of goes to the st argument with the nd argument in terms of who does pay stepping into the shoes of speech farms to use another metaphor is trying to put a square peg into a round hole and let me explain if speech farms selling its produce to kroger that creates one of these pa probably went beyond the labels in that distribution argument agreement to see what exactly was happening and in it's undisputed every single time that speech forms loaded a power onto the is there a law about what happens if there is some type of middleman that is of speech sells to you know ali baba sure i'm chinese  intermediary and they then sell it to an end user does that intermediary become a pack a seller or supplier will i think that this will go off pro or con yeah i think that's where the language in the statute or agents involved in the transaction would enter in i did not see any case law and that's why i can't say that it's come up frequently but i think that if there were if they  that is to say i i'm i'm speech and i just hire a lawyer or an accountant to market my goods that would be one thing but if i sell it to a middleman who isn't going to make pies out of it can they become a pack a seller or supplier i would kind of guess not but i'm asking because i'm not familiar with this area of law but i think it would depend if they go on then to supply or sell it to another that's what that's what i meant yeah yeah and all i would say here is that produce pay was actually at the front of the stream rather than theory and that agency capacity bringing us different grocers grocers that in trade on the question of receivables which i think of already touched on and i would just touch on again there if they've bought speech farms receivables that's only giving them a right  of outlines our position well thank you for the time but let me pretty press you then just for a nd on the points i was raising which was so you sell to kroger if for whatever reason kroger decided to turn around and sell those blueberries to the pie factories would they become a practice seller or a supplier just because they decided to sell it further on g if you're looking at the language of the statute you can't key off the st section and say well this trust couldn't be intended to operate for somebody that's received an assignment of the seller suppliers position