baby those promises they however did not give any type of notice or solicit any type of agreement from the landlord to leave the premises in some sort of negotiated fashion in fact the record shows that retained premises for other purposes or in baltimore noodling to sublease the premises which they had a right to do for their last term so there was no indication given by them bad even though they may have been abandoned in the promises for purposes of operating the business that they had been operating from there that they were actually handing back to business or any other way or walking away from the actual obligations under the lease for  nine there were a bunch of issues as the courses were aware of some sort of tension between the landlord in the tenant but all of that occurred in the very beginning of the lease in two thousand and seven and even that wasn't found by  type there was no overt action in fact it was a few weeks later they had all e t h turn back the keys to the premises and actually gave the landlord for the first time access to the promises which they  in kind of agreement or even any sort of acquiescence in the characterization made t x seem to imply and even their characterization seems to be inconsistent with their or their view that they still had opportunities to deal with the property was sent until i think the fifth of october there was five degrees was on there was not a five day grace period there was any indication indication the record that from time to time bt actually would pay the rent ion of rights inconsistent with your own has to be objected to has to be objected to the fakery of time we would contend then when they filed a lawsuit a few weeks later that was their answer that they didn't have to respond immediately  the concern that they had for the safety of their employees does it change their wasn't that was a false concern because as judge paul found it and correctly because the record doesn't indicate anything further the concern for the safety occur landlord kind of basically said ok fine and battling back court determined that that was sufficient to relieve the of the tenant of further obligations in this case we don't have that situation we don't have a voluntary turning over the they were not going to go ahead with the remaining one year of the term it was only after then could be unfortunate email from mr koppel that they apparently seized on it as a device for them to now walk away from the obligations of up to  purpose or alternatively we have a right to sublease them under the lease which they did so there were you at that point up until the october second email there was no doubt that they were going to assert their right to stay in the premises to the landlord that they were either going to use the premises for some alternative use to compare what they had these in a form or they could solve the lease it battles the status quo here as of october two of two thousand know on its face is one thing but it is a professional question based on the entire history of the relationship of these parties how that was intended to be received by my time how my client actually receives a fashion matter and i think on that issue the trial for her notice meant that there was a fact a full week cause of action i'm suggesting that in order to or this to actually result in some sort of imminent threat or danger to you or breach there would afterwards at least something done either a fine big bonus and a lockout in violation of the rest will use or a lockout before the fight again though is in order to have a violation the lease i mean i agree with you i think that one of property which is probably is going on but even during the interim intervening here he was using for storage for himself and friends for you know vehicles and more cycles and things that nature so that you know he has to make his choice and live with that his choice was to terminate  premises all of her in early two thousand and seven until october second two thousand and nine those employees were very contention satisfied to be working in those premises and operating out of improper conduct and confrontation occurred in the very first months of the lease charm that began on september one of two thousand and seven and i believe it continued for approximately two acknowledge that you have abandoned the premises and number two we are suing for damages so that lawsuit filed less than thirty days after the e mail was why it was sent basically assume my client's rights in its interest