but the reality of the marketplace is good you know you can't really negotiate those terms because there was no opt out language in the contract saying that he could write within thirty days to it there was no reason to attach multiple pages because i knew the law which is we can go to small claims you have a story and you have authority for that you have case law for that because that's one of your sanction motions and when i as far as i know illinois courts to issue them again was respect to whether or not the rules of people really as incorporated in the contract made with a six well did you ever stop to think as you presented this to the trial court that while you were very familiar with these contracts maybe the trial court wanted to read the whole country oh out of that most not the issue but i filed a complaint when we should have the me remind you what the contract said if the parties specifically agree to the binding each of the arbitration period you may opt out of this requirement for arbitration by notifying our life  writing via certified mail and the address below within thirty days after signing this agreement if that had occurred yes you could have gone to small claims all known did not occur i do not believe so because i think that's it's a simple way to my mind it's a simple issue of corporation dose of the terms then what exactly are we here for wish or wish here for  parts of their job i have never ever seen a course on the rule on t v arcanum attrition association whatever of course of course so how is the trial court to know that they have to follow th representation i do not know i know that the argument was presented at the trial court explaining that there was a reinstatement filed bed to relate back to the date of the contract and that the x would be we're here now for only one issue here paolo tez stated to the court that we have a binding arbitration agreement the trial of course discretion and only task at that time is to determine whether or not it has a binding arbitration agreement if it does have a tradition agreement it orders the parties to go to arbitration that's well too but councils argument is we have a binding arbitration agreement that says the rules way to step back and point out the aryan is that he's me first he says are you that the triple a consumer due process protocol is incorporated into the arbitration contract he also argues that the consumer procedures there are also commercial rules there are also consumer rules what you need to do is review them closely and we take a look at first the protocol protocol or not rules all they are are  by the triple a you get the parties that put together arbitration agreements to try to i guess even the playing field when they put together an arbitration provisions is simple simply in revenue to a guideline that the triple a parents ask appliance it's incorporated aaa saying it's our discretion now the parties have an issue then they need to bring it to our attention or bring it to the arbitrator's attention whether or not the exclusion of bodies that's really what's at issue here from it exhibit dealing or that is something that just took place that something that just came into effect september two thousand and fourteen those are the consumer rules those did now fly back when th opportunity to control whether or not he's going to be bound by this and again i will ask the question although i don't know and repeating myself it would not have raised an argument or should not be a reason argument from the other side because it was incorporated in this contract correct you may opt out and discussion you might not you might have argued about was it the thirty first day or was it the twenty ninth day but you wouldn't have argued if it was in the thirty days no you an arbitration agreement there is a contract justice is correct for corners of this document indicates and it's a bowl party specifically agreed to the binding major or attrition they're going to arbitration apparently tell us what that consistently of how all form selection causes expression when the only argument is that the convenience convenience is i guess it's not convenient to one of the parties there is no precedent body of case law out hearings and i believe it's in the preamble in exhibit d the court will consider that issue too if they feel the need to do or not and of course i apologise triple eight will consider that issue as well they want to  question my question is what isn't worth fish and possibly more efficient than a bench trial to small claims court and arbitration in arizona in arizona as the parties look at the record that's all the judge was talking about was this needs to go to arbitration and i believe the court needs to focus on the amount as well the amount as well it is interesting the trial court found it interesting this isn't about moment well the trial court did give you leave to refile the conversion complaint and you chose not to do that why didn't you just bring the conversion complaint against the one party that you believe is it issued here why did you include the other issues included were included making the ross issue the whole consumer friday issue why did you do that which i mean if we were listening carefully call into that into sufficient number of issues that i wanted to bring before you and and so i will especially especially in light of the fact that the conversion count was dismissed i'd ne although your motions for sanctions are not before as you did not you're not appealing bills in particular you have severely interesting language in the motions for sanctions motions for sanctions are pretty serious issues where we talk about somebody else did something wrong in violation of professional ethics and yet you use language like triple di daters result their way out of arbitration and lawyer defense lawyers can't be so stupid