if you're i may please the court my name is michael can represent india pallant the trial court below held that the solid waste disposal agreement at issue in this case can only be interpreted one way breach elements in addressing the first issue and i believe this is one of the key issues here the contract interpretation the lower court decided as a matter of law own summary judgment here that the contract unambiguous required saturday hours saturday operating hours and i'm sure that the justices have reviewed the contract and seen that the only reference to days of the week but not the rest of the week yes your honor my argument would be the same would be the same if you open on monday friday it would be the same your honor and i believe that we would then be putting ourselves in jeopardy of running afoul of first issue if we had only open for two week case for example i believe that there there would be potentially a cause of action by the plaintiffs but that doesn't make one reference to the days and hours of operation in terms of the contract would it seems to me to be open to become absolutely the intent of the parties here with regard to the contract we were to operate a landfill the haulers which bring their waste to the landfill they also got the benefit of predictable rates that increased them specified amount each year the if specific hours of operation which but it terms of determining whether or not one reference to operating hour seven thirty to one thirty on saturday that's a term of the sort if you changed it from seven to eleven thirty you'd think the argument would be the same bit you might begin running into the reference you me to are you really operating in good faith if you do that yes you're right i agree with that if we change the hours arbitrarily set of seven thirty  one thirty seven to eleven we may have affected the haulers business and we would potentially face consequences there but but the fact of the matter is that the day to day operation landfill is is not set out in terms of the that exists in context of the rest of the contract which will require to view it it clearly has a different date was prepared in conjunction with some other document and the rest of the contract it contains provisions in th cannot reasonably argue that you cannot reasonably argue that disposal ratio is anything other than a schedule of disposal rates and what the plaintiffs have done here cherry picked one provision out of that and tr finds that the saturday operating hours constituted a contract term that you only reached then as with the vast majority of contracts that parties enter into a vast majority of breaches there is a legal remedy that could have been utilized and could have made the parties whole here and that is simply imposition of money damages for breach the lower court did not address the  availability of a legal remedy in this situation back to the court's written order the court simply went from discussing the provision of saturday hours jumped right to it alice of whether or not the breach charitable which i'll address in my third up point that goes to the appropriateness of sedition but the fact of the matter is if there is a preacher it can be addressed with money damages plaintiffs chose not believe it's clearly error for the court not to addressing consider the legal remedy that was available for the court not to even mention it then on its face the record is devoid of an indication that the court under to mr david carteret pages forty nine fifty of the transcript when he was asked about the images testify i don't know how you would figure all of that but that a couple pages later page fifty two testify that he could have saved each one hundred dollars per day feed and this goes to your initial question earlier about testimony regarding saturday hours clearly a landfill was closed for a certain number of saturdays clearly there was testimony that the plaintiffs relied on the landfill being open  both entities was fulfilled granted if there was a breach which we argue there was not by the terms of the contract it could have been addressed through the imposition of monetary damages but the essential purpose of the contract was not defeated it's important to really see what's going on and i believe there was testimony by both sides in the record down below first of all it's important to note that landfill subsequent owners acquiring the shares of the haulers and actually buying the landfill from so the holders got a substantial benefit at the outset as a part of that deal call it they were that required to bring their waste to landfill what's happening now is that having gotten the benefit of seeing the consideration for selling their shares haulers it's this case specifically see disposal trying to if they made a mistake by not appreciate the fact that the parties relied on saturdays to be open if they made a mistake in their card that can be addressed to the position monetary damages which the trial court should consider imposed but saturdays none of that occurred businesses continue to operate and there may have been some inconvenience or some as i've said several times some potential damages that were occurring that should have been addressed at the lower court in this instance when it was established in our briefs that one percent of the days that the only operated this landfill one percent of the days that they close that was forty eight saturdays i believe about thirty five hundred or so days you drive much at night anyway and we can calculate the damages to you by figuring out how often you've been deprived of driving night and we can just give you some money you keep the materiality the trial court heard evidence from people who said we wouldn't have approached this contract or this deal if we knew that there was going to be a saturday close and yeah we reap the benefit of our bargain but we didn't for a decade we didn't look around them we didn't look for things to quibble over for a decade after we sold out we come there and the only time we started complaining about the contract was when we started closing on saturday and there we start complaining about it you wait until we follow our suit then you well i think there is no contrary testimony that says saturday was not an important day and in fact he the parties operated with saturday as an open day for years and i guess my the thrust of my argument it assuming for the moment the damages could even be reasonably calculated for the damage suffered why shouldn't the trial court review the plaintiffs given the nature of this breach what i said the foundation or the predicates of the statements i gave you were part wasn't correct but the closing was an unreasonable the paper was traded no basis for it went on for six months despite the importance with damages imposed for that landfill operated the rest of the other days of the week it was opened the plate is continue to bring their waste there a quarter to the record they complain perkily a few times when they try to show up on  clearly the plaintiff one down below and the trial court erred in failing to consider the legal remedy that was available to them and this could have been addressed with money damages and the contract that the law disfavors  just as there is with any other breach of any similar contract it doesn't mean that they were unreasonable or in bad faith or anything in that regard i think that is that takes it to a different level this could have been addressed  bought up and this is in the record i believe or most of the independents over time it impact is the six hundred pound gorilla in the community when it comes to not only operating a landfill but also owning and operating most of the routes there are five or six independents left one of whom is c c disposal and obviously if you only it continues in the same vein that it has it will be interested in buying up the remaining few and obviously if anything happens to those independents that remain like c c disposal that would damage their business it makes them more likely to want to sell probably at a at a bargain price i think that's an interesting argument and how we'd like to know what's going on in the real world but at the same time we're talking about a record what testimony was there that there was an  erior motive in viola closing for eleven months and i know most generous way to put it just put a squeeze on or let the independents know that you're kind mercy so you better sell out to i sue next part of the theory but where is that in the record i mean maybe we can infer that or it's one of those arguments where well everybody knows what's really going on here but i like to know with the record supports testimony it may be an argument that there was a motivation for this closure and that that maybe i don't believe that they answered the question straight on where is the testimony that connects those dots i don't think there testimony that says that's what we observed or we think that that's the guy anyway that there isn't anything in the record that supports the idea that the plaintiffs cannot just got a more favorable deal with another community and that's why they want the contract that's another one of those well that's probably what's going on there that that that is it really support it is not right it is not but there are two sides story three points that were made and at that time as of the time the summary judgment were heard there was no answer on file no answer ever been filed we have objected at that point and argued in our response point in this at this at the summary judgment that all of our complaint had been admitted in the case should be over the court did not agree but didn't find at that level and the orders are attached to the record  appellant that order that first order on summary judgment judge little did find that indeed hours were a part of this and saturday openings were a part of this contract but he did not agree with us that the case should have been over at that point four or five days later or maybe five or six days before the trial an answer was finally filed and we proceeded to the trial then the evidence was taken witness testified so for it is our position or my position and i didn't file a cross appeal here because we had one and it's always i think there are you always have faith in yourself as an attorney whether or not if you disagree even here today and i don't think it was well made in our brief but this is not a complaint at technically a equitable complaint for recision it is a complaint for declaratory judgment under the act requesting the trial court to find that the oliva the appellant here had materially breached the contract by not opening on saturdays and the end specifically we asked the court to declare we take our refuse out there and if they accept it then we pay for according to the terms of the contract and it's just not part of the contract was rescinded  earlier they order indicates the civically that the part that was whether you call it rescinded and we talked and in those terms in the briefing but or whether you call it the declaration that it was an excuse because the other side it had the charlie ratio it refers specifically to the obligation to deal exclusively because they had forced c c this also to go to another landfill on saturdays the court s but you don't have to go there anymore that's technically what the order the order simply that we requested and that the court entered justice was to that effect that we were not c disposals not bound to exclusively deal in fact they hadn't been because they've been forced to go elsewhere on saturdays so i would argue that this rather than the  we have a for example there is another provision in this contract which remains which require c c disposal to if it wants to sell to another party that it has to give a notice of her stride refusal to  breach was a saturday close right correct it's not closed anymore it's correct if i understand you correctly you say well we want to hear the benefits of this contract asked we focus the complaint route or ask for the court to declare in advance of having c c disposal just go off and breach this and go off and deal somewhere else all the time i ad is not what we if if my clients could attain a complete rescission and if we have in fact that's the interpretation of the trial orders order and now that i read it again for the umpteenth  would work good that's a very good point i don't i we were trying to be conservative we've tried to conserve all along instead of advising a commercial business like motion to dismiss and i have to check the record this to see i do not believe that was the rest of the of the motion but i know that the the argument was made a not a thirty years ago that is for that that that kind of alternative remedy this is appropriate and i think this kind of relief is what the declaratory judgment action on a point instead of having parties just go off and start taking actions willy nilly because they're may about something or because they think the other side just proves they we we went in and we tried to get the court to tell us but i think case to a situation where a business has a contract with a component supplier and for a period of time that supplier is unable to provide the component parts necessary for business and at some later point is able to be engaged continuous supply that component part that may result in damages to me as a business since i can't get my component parts to maintain my production but if we were to allow decision in every instance like that where a