the morning michael rhesus r t just for the fun of poli all right first of all welcome to you both secondly we apologize for starting twenty five minutes late to this you can see we enjoy our work and we have interesting thoughts that we need to express or feel like we need to gotten yourselves together and split this difference you think that we'd be here  word contribution of the parties come true in this case called the arbitration agreement said that the defendants were their right to see contribution from each other it's explicit not listen so the question of contribution was not before the arbitrator n p r trager did not make any findings with regard to contribution in any way shape or form and would be arbitrator isn't the issue really whether the court which would in force the award have the ability to apply to joint and several liability concept then the answer is i believe that the answer is i don't understand how the award was a big deal with how poor our lawyers and judges understand that concept of issue is under those circumstances whether the deficiency between two seventy five and ninety nine thousand two hundred fifty lies with the other party or not and that requires a decision to be made about whether joining the several responsibility should is something that we ought to even look into rather than literal then too literal on the average creation award which does not purport to look into it but which provides for a be his a clarification that i'm mixing two different questions here because my first question is why should even let's assume that this shouldn't have been remembered if it shouldn't have been  few years bit by removing the obligation to question is whether this would be a gross recognizable from the face of the award that would be the ultimate tes because it's indicated in that agreement that one party will only be responsible for ninety thousand and the other party will be responsible for an amount in between it was to fifty and six hundred thousand so it isn't the agreement itself saying that joint and several liability will not fire because we have agreed in advance that one of us will only contribute ninety and the other will contribute between two hundred fifty and six hundred thousand based on the that's your i q meant probably stronger that there was no that the only way that the arbitrator could clarify this order they could be sent back were based on the three provisions in the statute none of which were why isn't it at this point a single process well i think it is because of the nature of the extraordinary judicial participation in arbitration awards you have clarification and i don't see how you could vigorously protest against the jurisdiction of the name of the of the trial court to seek clarification and if it could seek clarification then the arbitrator immediately is within his jurisdiction in that his second every ssion is not beyond the limits of  t interpret and whether it goes be beyond the contractual authorization and whatever other factors in section thirteen are ignoring the facts the case that we have appeals that i have no doubt in my mind that you would quickly and maybe even some earlier for that decision and the reason you would do so is because the rules of judicial intervention for yes and then a letter is written like was written in this case saying oh by the way instead of two hundred seventy five you all two hundred seventy five plus one hundred eighty four thousand exactly why or how will came to us to know that no one seems to know but somehow he came to know there was a high low grade that's right and the agreement that was in place said that the arbitrator cannot points i think you have to show prejudice i don't think it's enough to simply say well nothing i say there's no prejudice when they're having to pay more than they thought they were going to have to pay well the little you're getting to pay less than what they thought they were going to response to here is are that or any clarification to take place the section thirteen wires that you set for those grounds and they improper there and we should there are two motions that were present before the judge all right he remanded for clarification and federal signal which interpret section nine says that the judge on his own marriage it's not enough just to say fifty percent of five fifty i think you have to make the final or with medical relief and say it's to seventy five yes it was impossible to make that final  it's resolved this whole thing again i'd have to say that like mr becker i was hired with well let me ask you this assume the trial judge didn't find anything that should have been clarified in the first place and you would take the position you've just articulated that join the several doesn't apply here it's two seventy five minutes to seventy five kadish case which all stand for the proposition that not only does it have to be a gross error of law it has to be evident on the face of the award and you can't go beyond the award and look at the arbitrators findings for opinion to make that determination and here excuse me unless you go to page seven of the memory opinion and get into the whole question of whether or not there was a finding that there was a single in the visible injury there's no way that you could determine there was any error don't apply this case because there was high low cream and they tell you but those cases tell you what you can look at and what you can look at they tell you that you're confined to the four corners of my work why wasn't he confined to that knowing about the high level here attorney's fees right i mean i think there are i think you can it would be very nice for me to argue you can't look at the agreement and since it's not apparent on the face of your ward that we had a single indivisible injury we  several liability it's blank what we have is basically a fifty fifty total amount of a five fifty and that said now to satisfy the board of education and and the line of cases that see past the manifest from the error has to be manifest from the the face of the agreement there is a gross error in order to meet date gross error because of the lack of indication on the face of the border  don't i don't see that because you would have to go on the face of the you're going with the original order yeah well the original was simply says fifty percent of if something is missing ah then either exists or doesn't exist i think that doesn't exist it's error from the face of the am not going to deal with what you think i but if you were on the other side of this issue i don't think he would be shelved all i'm saying all i'm saying is i don't see that the judge in this situation was with that you have a problem there when it doesn't change but it doesn't change your life and it was in terms of muster unless you're going to say there was a gross error and i don't think that there is a gross error in normally nobility to review the findings or the supporting reasoning in the opinion i mean the case astute distinguish between your ward and the opinion the two are not one of the same saw how you can get from over i think he put it well i don't know my belief is he put it in there because he wanted to negate the obligation that would be diminished in the event that one of the defendants life was found to be less than twenty five percent and for no other reason could depend any other basis considered something which he had no authority to consider i don't mean to be circulated the word consider presumably are you would have to you would have to make the right determination that mash sam i guess you would like me to respond by saying i accept that the judge erroneous lee remanded it to the average trader and therefore the average trader it the right to revisit his decision based on  award and therefore the time for confirmation didn't apply that is not the case we have a complete award in every respect and if you just look at the award and you separate that from the memorandum a bit there is no here and that's