that agreement never went to a fact it could not terminate in the earlier two thousand and eight contract additionally i did time the two thousand and sixteen agreement was presented to this party the two thousand and eight non computer agreement she had been employed by shocks for over eight years under that agreement that period of her employer then provided more than sufficient consideration for the two thousand and eight compete there was there were no basis for concluding that that agreement was  superceded by the later proposal sakit it is claimed that the statute books are in portsmouth the agreement in this case is based on just spewed material facts that cannot properly be resolved at the summary principle that your courts will not of course not compete when a party is terminated without cause is actually related specifically to the complete choice doctrine includes choice stop trances not apply in this case travelex has travel box with whom she had personal contact in the two years prior to her employment that person is nearly ten you are in order to ensure that she is not taking advantage of travel like this good will in the decision of the district court we're going to bad decision was in court wealthy outcome of the decision and the reasoning of the decision and so will the matter should be remanded back to the district court i believe there's some additional discovery that needs to take place reason a genuine issue of material fact that should be turned over to the trier of fact to determine whether or not that agreement went into  is that new york is the infamous among state court for having so many opinions for that thank you for that would certainly true but but my point is is there what's the best case is post the best case by holland relatively recently and explains the distinction and why we include charlie stock train is actually an exception to new york's reasonableness requirement and so if you're not talking about taxes trying to get around a reasonable that's requirement exception to reasonable less so you may be able to enforce an agreement that otherwise would be unreasonable and so it makes sense that if an employer is trying to take advantage of that exception that perhaps the went to without cause would come into a fact but sure it's just simply not not at issue additionally this budget was terminated for caused she was terminated because she refused to comply with the consideration of her continued employment looks or maybe and employees from turning around and using tribal rugs that is advertising and goodwill see who agree to travel expense interests for just a very short period of time we're not talking about an agreement here that says you can't its former act will employ seeking to enforce the latest agreement that simply does not exist the burden of proving the existence of a contract rests on the part of the party seeking to it forces the pellets in this case attempt to address some of the arguments raised by those who counsel in her belief is once today finally should type permit i will dress one of the adverse consequences of adopting of health position in this case and reversing the district court's or the alleged agreement which did not modify miss party status is that will that will point provided for one year period following your determination of her employment that she would not solicit nor do business with any existing or prospective actually deny signing it but you can survive summary judgment on that every time why not do it in every case so certainly some unscrupulous employers might consider doing that and so we respectfully disagree based upon the facts presented where there was not a single witness to her signing case where are we good believe this problem as the district court noted that we're talking about two different entities especially when we're talking about a mutuality of obligation again the the entity that was the employer  records says you know i didn't see or cite it but i know when reviewing a file with a whole bunch of other documents you cite i saw almost a decade ago if that's all that's required in order to survive somebody's judgment i suspect that this  leads to more types of dr peeke cases with little or no evidence at the end of the day this party a new york resident found herself be sued in the state in the brassica on a claim for an agreement she frankly did not someone who directly saw the signed agreement and gave did have some money about why she remembers seeing it but there's also documentary evidence there's an e mail from this party referencing the agreement there's a fax cover sheet that references the agreement material fact that should be decided by the trier of fact with respect to the mutuality argument that's been made this agreement was prevented from its prior to the two thousand and sixteen proposed agreement specifically sinners that it's you will be continuing her point she remain an employee of travelex insurance services inc which was with her employer before and after that time period and that company was willing to continue employing her it wanted to continue and claim her she was the party that refused to comply with the condition of that employment so the idea that there is no mutuality or that travis was not providing any kind of consideration for the agreement really just is not cracked additionally as i said before she's already one hundred and twenty thousand and eighty one the rise and fall two thousand and sixteen before any of that happened so that eight year period certainly was sufficient consideration allowed there's not additional information with respect to the assignment in the record because that is you would not run that was argued before the district court it's not something that was ever really parsed out so there is fairly limited evidence in the r that my time has expired but there are any other further questions apparently in the thank you for your argument thank you