should before the court today is whether or not mr harris has the right to collect on a three hundred thousand dollars real estate commission associated with the sale of some apartment buildings down the work connecticut  my client was initially hired by oh no the owner of the property back in two thousand and nine by a listing agreement he continued to work on this project trying to sell through two subsequent listing agreements until this new agreement which the subject of the contract between the parties in may of two thousand and eleven came to be that contract as a result of that and according to the terms of the listing agreement specifically paragraph four which reads if during the term here in the term was for may sixteenth twenty eleven through november of twenty eleven if during the term her or within six months from the terminations this agreement should it be an acceptance of an offer to purchase or lease from the purchaser the owner agrees to pay the agent a commission as per the suit remit now the bankruptcy court interpreted that section incorrectly because the court recognized that there was a possibility that mr harris could receive a commission from the obtaining a person sale agreement but the court take that as a pending a personal commitment after the determination of the agreement the court didn't interpret the contract listing agreement correctly to note that if during the time term of the contract the listing agreement at that if a person s essential that a sale occur for a my client to be entitled to a commission that is directly contrary to that provision of paragraph four that i just pointed out and therefore a correct it does not in any way say that the commission has to be paid she is me that commission is earned through a sale if if that if there was that requirement then the  agreement is as per the agreement so why do we not think that include the requirement to sell because your honor if that were the case then that particular sentence in says if during the term here of the six months from the termination so if during the term here of a purchase and sale contract is entered into then my client is entitled to a commission you can get paid then there's an acceptance during an agreement yes that's exactly what the listing says why would you bother to have the requirement the provision saying that you can get paid when you get a sale will never be a sale without an example well that's automatically you have paid we're entitled to a commission so if that's true there's no reason to reference say all ever it's that's not necessarily the case your honor because the way the listing agreement reads a sale can occur mr harris gets paid the person sales contract sent it into but perhaps never closes there's no sale then but we don't need to reference a still don't because if there was a silver had to have been purchased until agreement well so exceptions takes care of it so one way to think about it since they talk about sale and acceptance why wouldn't we read it to say there's got to be a still always sometimes the acceptance will come within that six month period but knowing how long can take to close would be kind of unfair to allow you to manipulate it so they take the sentence draw out the closing and then deny you the payment instead you get a free pass as long as there's an acceptance six months afterwards but there's always going to be a sale that that's the way the bankruptcy court interpret the contract  how the district court interpret contract what's wrong with that i guess what i'm saying is because that doesn't provide because that sentence of paragraph four also provides a circumstance where commission brokers a title to a commission officio never happens refers not only to acceptance is that occur after it expires but also two sentences that occur during the period of the agreement and also cover situations where there's an offer and acceptance and the sale never happens now the way the bankruptcy court looked at this is it said well the sale you know certainly the sale didn't occur under this two thousand and eleven agreement but if that was because there wasn't really an offer an acceptance so the bankruptcy court recognized that sales not essential but the court said well it's not a critical factor here because the court said there really wasn't an acceptance and offering acceptance on terms acceptable to the seller open up and the way the court came to that conclusion was that even though the person so contract contains all the terms that are normal person so contract would in terms of identifying parties price location terms of the fall term you know all title everything else even though in paint all of those terms it required the seller to provide clear marketable title to the buyer which it was unable to do instantaneously upon upon the signing of the agreement because there were conditions placed on the property or rent restrictions is a prepayment penalty there are some other conditions that the seller needed to negotiate out with the connecticut housing authority before the property could be sold but what we're saying your honor is the bankruptcy court got that wrong because it's that's a contract performance issue and to fill their obligations by times right now thank you very much to the substance of the case obviously we we believe that both the bankruptcy court and district court interpret the contract correctly that there is a requirement of a sale  says in order to protect the broker if there is a sale during the term except i do believe that if in fact all that was needed was an acceptance of a contract that there would be no reason to reference closing anywhere as a requirement of work conditions or even occurrence for that matter because of the obligation to pay which would ari that's when the commission would become due and it's clear that in this case there were non permitted exceptions that could not be cleared off the property within the time must mean it is their contract not under connecticut law with the listing agent get paid the question is i don't know your laws or contract and if i assume if the buyer you was willing to tolerate the condition the problematic the seller's down yes that suggests there's an acceptance there's a contract at that point there's a legal obligation at that moment of manifest here by the language of except and since you conceding there was an acceptance why doesn't it just solve it i suppose i suppose i don't i don't believe the word acceptance was merely the moment you signed the contract  had to be something that ultimately turned out binding on the seller have to sell the property which is which is this terrorist point that he believes that that occurred at that i mean that might support that might support the requirement of by the requirement of their view sale of the yes it would be then you might think well then that six month tale period they were saying law that an agreement like this which is an acceptance counts so long that even if it comes late so long a either bad luck you brought somebody to the table right at the end of the term they can't get close sufficiently within the original term but nonetheless results on closing to that fire or that somebody that you brought to the table during that time period who actually know end up signing a binding purchase and sale agreement on terms that the seller will sell until a little bit after the end of the term which they define as six months so yes i do believe that provision was there in order to capture those but not ceased the six month six month period expired and that is the only thing i'm told with how do we know they ceased so i ventured into an agreement now i find out there's this condition don't want to accept either party goes away tries to get rid of the condition or find some way to work it out they then come back in contact with each other now they've reached oh there was a way around it so how do i know that negotiations didn't continue vs they continued in the way that would make sense which is until you can work it out i don't think we've got a deal ok i'm still trying to work it out he has worked it out now we have a deal because there's no evidence this deal in the first deal not working do we have any thing in the record that's as one party says the other i'm through with you i'll get back to you and what do they say to one another when they discover that on the record was the record show for the record the record shows that there was no continue discussions and negotiations that march twent a year or so he needed to hear before us the money back so we might say guess he was still thinking maybe something was going to work out until the end of march he says i want the money back and what's what's said back to him at that point he was giving the money and is there any evidence on the record of what was said between the parties when the money went back there is there is evidence only and letter requesting money back that's you know we're not we're not interested in buying under the terms of first sale agreement and please return our money and then the next time we just the check comes back and then the next moment that they speak to each other's posts march what about a year later i can't recall because i think the record as e mails that are running from like mr harris to others other than respect buyers i don't know if he has any direct evidence with regard to your visit at least as of march negotiations were not continuing once he gets the