sophisticated investor and attorney and had five years experience dealing in this particular development and was just one of many investors who were involved in finding the largest interest to the interest of amber health so i think now stands under this court's judgment mr overstreet has been pushed the front of the way and preexisting interest belonging to other investment ciliated with very few villages have been made junior to that interest we believe that the district court erred in the number of critical respects in ordering that particular relief documented real estate agreement between two sophisticated commercial parties in that agreement in fact in multiple instances of that agreement there were expressed time is of the essence process and it was mr over street who had initiated the exchange between the parties indicating that the june thirtieth two thousand and eight was a must close situation he wasn't going to accept all extensions or  at the record the statement of naturally the attorney and i believe the court corrects trial counsel for mr overstreet on this never said that he had the authority in fact he expressly stated he didn't have the authority to extend the closing date must be in writing and signed by both parties and the agreements also clear remedy sections more of a breach well under this agreement mr overstreet was required to do several things first was he had to tender a deed free individual who had the power to release that interest until after the fourth of july holiday well after the schedule closing is it's clear guys couldn't close on that date either if they wanted to because of other clouds sometimes rather there's very substantial judge also concluded that had mr overstreet not relied on the supposed statements of mr lee and or harm he might well have and i think that's the court's actual words might well have been able to clear the title and it was issued in may of two thousand and three and a petition for review was denied on august twenty sixth two thousand and three so this is something that's occurred afterwards but it does stand for the proposition we believe  on the representation that was made to them and they do mr overstreet the as i understand it the notion of the basis of the opposing counsel argument is that he had be a problem and he stopped doing anything it was enough reliance that he stopped at that point of doing anything else to see about getting to the agreement to have the problem solved i think all of the other argument notwithstanding the fact that a lot of his initial purchases were structured as temporary when exchanges he took the position before this district court what was really going on here was that he was a security lender and seeking his eighty percent return and if he didn't get that he was for this particular contract was extremely different involved different from other investments that mr overstreet had made and so it's clearly distinguishable species case which is referenced in our brief are provides additional support for the concept that the package waiver does not make money off of that property with further development the only thing that we've seen in that agreement does is not force a particular timeframe for fairly village to purchase so contrary to how it was presented to the district court there was no