different dates for a total of four times out of every twenty first and then later on november twenty eighth and both of those states eclipse sent the entire package but how much how do we know the clips on there because the clips that if that's the case right if you want to break down to the last point on this particular argument in this court's prior opinion in this case you stated that if there was a dispute issue of fact on the issue of whether an arbitration agreement was made that under the f a a the remedy is to graduate evidentiary hearing here the district court in its opinion frankly misstated that rule of law and said that if there is not sufficient evidence to grant said we never got it how do you meet the summary judgment senator what she said was she doesn't remember ever getting a lapse of memory is not sufficient to create an issue effect at all we have in contradiction to this affirmative  you're conceding that you didn't send it in your own cases it's hinged on whether it could senator not it just seems i'm not sure why you're fighting so hard to try to claim you've got an undisputed fact not make a definitive ruling on these matters we've been discussing that's right he said the business of reviewing judgments orders and findings of this records so would seem to be a nonstarter even and i would say more parsimonious to put it a different way to simply do the reading and get out of the district court to do that to make that record and i would suggest you that is certainly required here when the cour a fact it's required that that of course ignores the district court's terminations that there has been a statement a clarifying statement of new jersey law arbitration specific or search and that you've got to have a clear and express waiver of that or your constitutional right here all the difference that if that's true how how does your argument actually follow that this is a focus on arbitration where frankly rather than reached that the new jersey supreme court had to go to to come to that list of cases demonstrates that this rule applies primarily to arbitration clauses and not to contracts in general and in fact the court stated several times its opinion that it applies only to crisis that are waiver of rights clauses that alone to be some highlight some emphasis required what's what's wrong with the new jerusalem ports approach and following that footnote six from the u s supreme court well first of all that  new jersey supreme court's says is we're going to give this the same review that not special in arbitration cases but the same review in all cases where there is a waivers  constitutional rights if they're giving the same and the demand is or for clarity and added clarity and indeed there are plenty of contracts form contracts out there one contract think sept one contract and you credit those those had exactly the kind of language the supreme court of new jersey seems to be saying ought to be in these clauses so it's not like they're asking for something novel or what's what you seem to be accurate your argument seems to be pinned on the idea that this is a dramatic heightening but there are plenty ha's out there that do it already why shouldn't your client be required if you say well certainly you know there are causes out there  attribute you don't go to work you can never require somebody say you can't go specifically you're not going to be allowed to go to work because that's that's an attribute doesn't that kind of turned on its head the entire body of no heightened standard of understanding or knowing the ramifications of what the clause says and so that's the level playing field right adding the additional is an leveling playing field it seems to me you're making the same misstep that you're frightened of the other side's making which is you're going to characterize the evidence and try to explain to us why you win which i'm suggesting should be done in the district wh should we send it back for a full and final determination on that that he should because i assume you would agree that if it's finally determined by the district court that your client didn't get it then burden of the defendants to convince the court that there's a material issue of have a rule like adelies lays out your targeting arbitration unfairly and that is in violation of concepcion good meat that organ it had on well he if you're talking about least half that have some words that say case is going to be well i know that it's a good to arbitration and that means you don't go to court but they didn't tell me i can't go to the local justice of the peace or they didn't tell me i can the federal court it just becomes  be more than that it needs also say and by the way this means you can't go to court with the prevent the jury's school court from say well we we said that now we'll see some other cases and we have to add all these other things  because there are limited by what they can do in that regard but conception room and footnote six they can they can require things to be highlighted and so doctors letters right now food at six as you can you can require highlighting is that a material legal distinction between requiring something you placed in capital letters and something to be highl only thing yet he's required is that there be very simple statement so it's not a knowing it's not a heightened standard it's a sure it's a very simple standard this thing was substantively unconscionable and that was enough to throw it out but do you have any authority for the proposition that under new jersey l both sides of the scale that there's one side of a scale nothing at all on the other unless the issue of arbitrary arbitrarily itself the thing that's an issue right right that that there's if you just look at that alone how would you draw the conclusion that oh the trigger for its rule the impetus for its rule from what at least concedes is a fundamental aspect of arbitration and that's the waiver of the right to go to court and for that reason because it draws its meaning i cases the others were whether there was a waiver by action as opposed to a waiver by contract so the question of the clarity of the contract was their issue at all and the two places that were contract cases the court simply spoke in terms of a