summary judgment in the main argument was the statute of frauds plaintiff opposed on an electronic signature statute argument and to lower the district court's main conclusion was that text messages to not equal are writing and that the statute of frauds was not satisfied that therefore puts the defendant in a district court against a great weight of our economy which is and just the suite for example you could see that three brick and mortar retailers filed for bankruptcy like j crew j c penney and neiman marcus is going against the great weight of our culture where required and even in the descendants group an opposition opposing counsel agreed with that regardless even if the statute required it or those cases require e mails have claimed that's plain of stop title and address and also the sentence attorney's contact information there were over five hundred lines of text messages not to mention several key e mails light favorable to the responding party on that motion for summary judgment defended merely cited three non new york and new jersey cases from over fifteen years ago including lower court cases meanwhile right here in new york within the past few days in the southern district i argued d a motion where judge read const said that my client's clicking of the seals on the  agree is a contract in the southern district that's good parent not even a trend it's reality and what defended its billing it's a really antiquated th century kind of liking that if the defendant has an exclusive listing with a realtor another realtor that binds that defendant to the deal with the other real butter and  neither in the district court nor in this court did you give any explanation of the significance of the word exclusive and in addition you don't mention it at all in the complaint to complaints it doesn't contain the word exclusive i don't think  in the district court the district court apparently failed to understand any significance to the word exclusive because didn't discuss it at all why shouldn't we with court that claim is simply forfeited and not before  was not really what the product line was about in terms of defining quote unquote exclusive we felt that it wasn't that much of a term of art it speaks for itself as the phrase quarter in the district court addressing the significance of the failure to reveal the exclusivity if you will if you don't have now you can do it by red or you can do it by letter afterwards to us if you don't have a pager i might have to take you up on that your honor i don't have that at my fingertips because quickly look at that businesses and we cited the place in the record which would have been our counter statement of facts paragraphs one hundred and thirty six through one hundred and thirty seven  now i cited some cases there at this point in time i don't believe those cases were about what exclusive listings mean i think that was more about fraud by not communicating and being silent on a material fact so once again just in terms of general experience professionals or even adults who own property or d at borders so property or dealt with the real estate broker in that kind of thing which i think is not common but i think it's routine and that's it the court and the attorney special case citation that's just my personal view on the main point in terms of the whole serious liability the cause of action was even if  a new that he was in competition and defended said st one to get you a signed contract in the deposit wins of a plane of new there was somebody else out there that he was competing with but he did know that that competition was rigged and that other party would win because this my client did in fact when he did get the buyer with the deposit two hundred and fifty thousand he did get to sign a contract in one of the defendant's own terms so the new jersey uniform or tronic transactions act that's not your argument is it that just by sen not exactly because under the language of the statute there is that final frames which is more or less saying an electronic process or sound or symbol that clear from that case which is in jersey state case i think all the other cases that you keep something at the end of the text or the e mail that could be the intent to sign it does have to be something formal it could be just a name but here you know you made reference to all these things all these different you know it's but you don't look at you know you have to look at the text that you're claiming are a stamp which the contract and you can correct me from moment but on those text you're saying this is where the contract was established there's nothing in those text and not a single one of them where your client or or or the you know opposing party used something at the end of the text their name rainer the indication that would that would show intent that this was to be a signature  down to five hundred that corroborates that another thing is you've got external evidence corroborating his assent and intention namely that final version of the sales agreement with the buyer listed plaintiff as a broker so you have multiple places where there's evidence sitting attention including the text messages as well as the a contract referring to that establish the contact with her anything at the end of the tracks and you think that would constitute a signature and if you meant nothing formal but anything on those particular tracks well he's got it location of the businesses it was in new jersey they owned brick buildings and real property in new jersey and they were new jersey licensed which is a factor that the relevant case law says is titled the heaviest weight there were numerous other ties to new jersey as well that would be tailed in our brief there's certainly a couple you know some ties to new york city in this the box office but the district court correctly found these are overwhelmed by the factors pointing to new jersey this is not a close call now nd of all to address the issue with the electronic signature the new jersey uses the uniform electronic transactions act and since it uses a uniform act case law from other states that use the same law is relevant and we cited case law in states from the e u e t a that use the u e t a and this case is not fifty years ago i mean if you look at page twenty seven of don't indicate an intent to sign they just indicate that a message has been sacked and sending a text message is very different from clicking i agree because the very fact that there's an i agree next to the box you click shows that the electronic process that you're doing evinces an intent to sign that is not present here in addition the played this is arguing against a straw man the district c never held that an electronic signature has to include name and contact information the district court cited a case that said name and contact information did you know was enough it  contact information it was nothing that even said you know signed joe so there is not an electronic process here that any court has ever recognised as constituting a signature and i know on the council just now discussed what he believes is corroboration that there was an intent to form an agreement but again intent to form an agreement is not the same as a signature that the new jersey statute of frauds is very specific that there has to be assigned writing and if that motion could be over if that requirement could be overcome every time the plaintiffs can point to some factor that indicates an in tent to agree then there would be nothing left of the writing requirement then it would essentially be any or d all agreement qualifies which is not what the new jersey legislature intended and i would have went with this is wil forceable agreement to agree because among other things the plaintiffs missed the bus creepy did lee told mr le fredo over the text messages that a written agreement would be done that was on the way so these messages under either new jersey or new york law did not amount to an agreement they amount to you know maybe an intent to inform and to form an agreement later so yes i would say that this court could invalid you know could rule for the defendants and affirm the district court either on the basis of the you e t a which i think is quite clear or on the basis that there was never a contract believe that you know st lady when this is not specific enough to constitute a contract among other things st lady wins good instead if i what the st lady would win so there are terms that i'm missing that would render that text agree that that text message in isolation or even in its context with the other is that followed it not enough to constitute a contract especially with the being the plaintiffs himself saying that a written agreement would follow i would also point out that in the papers below the  text messages that allegedly constituted the contract changed in the plaintiff's into raga tory responses they pointed out for a specific one and by the way the interactive tory response was also carrack the rise of those text messages as on the sign this is the plaintiff's words not mine unsigned then in the summary judgment motion they said well the contract isn't just those four it's all of the text messages and i think that if the court is to expand this and consider all of the text messages then it has to consider for instance the text message where the plaintiffs said if the sale doesn't close you owe me nothing there were a couple of text messages to that effect me and also if the court has to consider all of the text messages then it has to include the text messages where the plaintiff is saying written agreement will follow that even looking at these messages in the right that they are to indefinite to constitute the contract that he claims exists which i mean in addition is contrary to all common sense to contend then on a prospective for a five million dollars deal that a business broker isn't title to ten percent whether or not the contract whether or not the shell closes i mean i don't but i can imagine  is not the way the real estate business works isn't it sounds to me as it would slightly differently consistent with your point that it might be sufficient to come to the contract but that contract would include the term that the without a closing there's no there's no payment yes i would i would agree with that as well your honor and also there is no on that point may briefly address the fraud issue to begin with the new jersey case law holds that if the statute of frauds is not complied with the plaintiffs cannot evade dismissal by repackaging the claim is quasi contract with tort but independently of that brought a culture that action for fraud under new jersey law and for that matter new york law requires reliance and there is not a shred of evidence i mean in addition to the but declined but what did not reveal that exchange the other broker on an exclusive basis which was the fact and as i understand exclusive basis although i don't purport to have expertise that has my understanding so different from what your adversary said it doesn't mean that another contract can't close it means that the broker who has an exclusive during the term of the exclusive of exclusive of the will get a will get his brokerage commission on any sale regardless of whether he bought the contract brought the buyer or not or had any role in the sale that occurred now it seems to me that the evidence shows that without the plaintiffs expended time and money in the i'm in finding they rosenberg buyer and very likely wouldn't have done that if he had known that the other side have an exclusive nothing from the plant that's saying that this is the case there's no affidavit from miss the boss saying i would never have agreed to sell this property if i had known that fact there's nothing in his deposition saying i would never have agreed to sell the million that's a strong disincentive to accept such a contract well in addition however you know the the flipside of that judge is that the contract that mr abbas for cured was for about a one million dollars more in a cell at a later time declined to close the original one you didn't know that you would be stuck with a lower price and a later time all go well that was he didn't know he would even be i apologize judge he didn't even know he would be able to sell it at all i mean there was no reason for him to walk away from that contract other than that you know as he attested the other side was playing games but just to return to my point it would have been very easy for mr bost to put in an affidavit on summary judgment saying i would not have agreed to sell the property if i had been informed of this act he did not and i would point out also that part of the issue below is not whether he would have to sell the property it's whether he would have invested time and money in that in trying to set up a deal that was doomed to failure because it would require to double commissions then he could have said that your honor he could have put in an affidavit saying i would never reveal greed to do that but he didn't and you know why it's because he was hungry for this deal he was the said please let me shelters property for you he was you know he was really anxious to break into this to break into this conversation and he did this transaction and i don't think anything would have deterred him i mean he was he was practically salivating at this meeting to sell the property he was you know he was the one who brought it up i mean this is a live free didn't say can use elders and me it's the court pointed out he did not explain in any detail why exclusive it was a material fact i mean the explanation that the court just gave was the was mentioned in at most the conclusory fashion and again the new jersey law is that if the statute of frauds not complied with for a contract claim you can't repackage it as a quasi contract or a tort claim anyway so i don't think the court even has to go there i think that if the court does go there that it should find that the claim is wrong preserved and there is no evidence of reliance however i don't think the court has to i think that the district court decision was correct and should be affirmed in all respects thank you very much mr bruno just on that very very the amended complaint paragraph eighty eight causation is set forth as a direct result of the sentence intentional misrepresentation and or concealment of information the plaintiff was caused to sustain damages preserve that for appeal in fact the moving party defendant never really thought about causation and what would have happened whether or not that was revealed that he didn't say i would have not worked so that was an even part of defendant's moving papers going back to a couple of these arguments very quickly defendant's argument that first person the when ever gets to sign contracts and two hundred and fifty thousand and deposit the being that's very clear it's very definite over that happened after the main point of contention which was the stay the scene was the real a signed contract a deposit and that was after that so that comment really happened after the contract this comment or argument about playing that stating i'll get you a fee agreement over that also happened after the contract was formed plaintiff kept working defended kept plaintiff working defendant never stopped the plaintiff and in fact at some point  the final version of the sales agreement said that it was the broker he generated the two hundred and fifty thousand dollars deposit so defended isn't another difficult d impossible position to say that he didn't agree to that and needed some kind of a sea agreement anything agreement after that writing would it but then either just something cosmetic were memorial the contract was already formed this whole argument about quote unquote closed the deal with you well may quote don't close when you don't know being that was really at a point in time where we were at a breach of contract i defend it because he was not doing due diligence he was not time that an amended complaint was just to add a nd plaintiff and basically the causes of action were all identical we learned a point in time where anybody really had to answer just one of the  please thank you very much