law rather than the california arbitration applying california law that's not what the agreement says that's what you're telling us now your honor i respectfully disagree that is not accurate where does this leave a letter agreement could not be clear it's the civically and i would point to the court it's a page of the record you are one one for is that letter the complete agreement of the parties on the issue of blackout is that the complete agreement of the parties no your honor yes to the transaction we're talking about it is not ok so we have to look at the whole thing not just one piece of right i do agree with your honor he's correct and they have lined up with different here the only thing that's being disputed here and that specifically is covered by paragraph eight point four which is an either or one one for it could not be clear the parties have agreed  directly v has conceded that the issues that must be resolved in this fight are about the blackout provisions anything about not going to arbitration your honor if you are correct it doesn't writing what it does clearly sat back and said with respect to you with regarding the blackout that dispute and only that just would be eight point four and i don't think the parties could have been clearer well they could have been clearer if they'd said but not go to for those disputes don't you think what really happened is they put that in about the other agreement they just didn't realize they already had an all encompassing arbitration agreement i do like your honor and i think it's could be clear from the language here and they were both did april eighteenth and the court sure to recognize and in connection with both provisions they were both on the same day i believe that the same parties were negotiating i don't think there's any evidence to that in the record to the contrary they were i can see they were negotiate at the same time i don't think it was an oversight at all i think with respect to what was funny about the black have provisions there was going to be one place this could be resolved and only one place don't you think that there's a way in which the to agreements can be accommodated that is that there seek review of an arbitration award so that two provisions could be reconciled if you were to construct this is the choice of law provision and it provision that governs jurisdiction of courts to review the arbitration construct in accordance with the applicable laws of mexico a correct that's clearly a choice the law provision which says nothing about whether it's going to go to arbitration or not then the next part but themselves to the jurisdiction of the court of mexico  you read it i don't think it's quite as specific but doesn't the sub license agreement also deal with blackouts what it does is it refers to this side letter and it does absolutely paragraph six point six it does do that but jurisdiction rather than arbitration row your honor it could not be clear when it says farewell to complete waiving any other jurisdiction to which they might be entitled due to their present or future domiciles so they're saying just in case we weren't clear even if point has misread this clause the brains irrevocably waving any other jurisdiction to which they may be entitled applies only to an argument based upon is it says we will waive any jurisdictional argument based upon our domicile miles that is florida and mexico now my opponent has referred to the phrase for all disputes related to arising out of the if a specific clause is followed by a general statement the general statement only modifies the specific clause and and if you look at the words for all disputes related to ar ising out of the obligations of televisa here under to construe it otherwise would be to really change the meaning of the first part of a point for that is for any aspect here in related to the interpretation fulfillment in judicial requirement so i think my opponent is reading more into the phrase for all disputes relating to or arising out of the obligations of televisa here rather i think she's reading more into it than is there especially under the arbitration clause inferior in the case of the right conflict if you force the arbitration clause what's left of a point for the very same thing that was left in personal security  rather then this limitation is the just that the parties intended the clause to apply only in the event of a non arbitrary will dispute that must be litigated in court for example a suit to challenge the validity of the application of the arbitration clause or an action to enforce an arbitration award so they went to the wrong court in the first place they went to the central district of california when instead they should have gone to the mexican court to challenge the application of the arbitration clause and that's what's left and eight point four and we know that the federal arbitration lists let's say and i don't say that these cause they're competing and before i can sit down all explain why they're not competing but let's say these clauses are competing what happens well if the clauses are competing then the only security it says there is no promise which explicitly forbids arbitration of claims arising under the stock purchase agreement so in this case there is just no express mention of arbitration  i've mentioned but you can implicitly do that if you say everything under the sun all disputes everything having to do with this clause or this agreement is the be litigated and a court of general jurisdiction the problem with that argument is again and runs contrary to the route to reported circuit decisions but it isn't supported by section eight point four because that phrase for all disputes related to or arising out of the rights that must be valid to tell of these the one televisa gets its own license that's the only reason they're there but the person who's going to be doing the blackout obligation that's required by the license is going to be televisa because talisa didn't get all the rights that i was talking about they only got a subset of the rights that aspect i have and sold there was no reason to have in clause in section twenty two point two point eight after two three pages of text about the arbitration clause the parties then threw in a final comment the parties agree the reliance upon courts of law and equity can add significant cost in the life of the process of resolving disputes accordingly if they recognize that an essence of this agreement is to provide for the sub mission of all security and patent securities unless there is really a specific statement of waiver of the arbitration clause the observation clause applies and in this case i would submit that the clauses tell too far into the merits of the matter to determine exactly what happened that day but it can look at the pieces of paper that it is there are before it and according to the pieces of paper that are before it that was just they were get told me that was just given the rights to free television and the license agreements and you're going to be responsible for making sure that that's all you get and then the or a portion of the matches or license master matches the any other form of television distribution defined below other than three terrestrial television sol the mechanics of the blackout agreement are the mechanics of that are set forth in the side letter and that's why the slide letter is there and the side letter then in conclusion basically says that if you're going to have any enfor exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of mexico it does not say that and i would remind the court that the personal security decision in volved an exclusive jurisdiction clause the impersonal security strong policy reasons and i think i called in concluding from the republic of nicaragua case from this court in one thousand nine hundred one we must strictly enforce any agreement to arbitrate regardless of effort to delineate what was the agreement which is going to be arbitrated what was the side letter what were the letter or green let's specific definitions another indication that the parties clearly understood they were talking about two different th under you know it is them is their common sense explanation of how all these parties could of the same entered into an agreement with an all encompassing arbitration clause and a lot of recycles about not what was intended here you were supposed to wonder who was looking at the third party looking into this arrangement was supposed to say ah if it only pertains to blackouts it is quite clear mexican law and mexic aspect here and related you can give those words no meaning and as the quote correctly points out you have to give meaning to every provision in the contract whether you look at it as the whole or in pieces thank you very much