my name is jason williams i'm representing a little man in the boat sporting i know the court has the briefs and has read the briefs so i really want to focus on three points that are key for bring these out from briefs the first point is that buying a boat is not the same as buying a car or maybe an even better way to put it in this case selling this yacht is not the same as selling a used car and particularly sell your used car over the internet ten years now counsel this case really gets down to whether there was actually a contract right and whether it's a boat a car a house he's a bubble gum a contract is a contract right yes an offer and acceptance and then consideration right yes but before we even go there it's the district court found that didn't have personal jurisdiction over the sell because it found that there were not sufficient minimum contacts so let's go past the personal jurisdiction issue because you've got a pending case filed in washington right that state ok this point so let's move past personal jurisdiction and get to the country issue you've got an offer in there is the acceptance so where are you find acceptance well so the offer is the offer that was made by kevin state all on the morning of december thirty first which was in a phone call when he said to mr murray twelve thousand five hundred dollars and it this is our counteroffer twelve thousand five hundred dollars vehicle in the amount of twelve thousand five hundred which would be followed up by written counter offer murray excepted the counter offer of twelve thousand five hundred dollars then the written counteroffer was sent and murray excepted that by signing it and by sending it back now in the apple lease brief they certainly argue that this blatantly mis characterizes the conversations but that's a question of fact we're supposed to at this stage were first to take the allegations of the complaint as true and notice notably nowhere in the apple as brief do they contest that kevin steve all made this counteroffer and said here is the counteroffer and murray excepted the deal at that point we have offer and we have a well then i'm trying to catch ok here  so what was sent back so what was attached right  the so there was a form that was attached right there was a written a written form that was attached to the written written counteroffer yes ok and i there is ambiguity in that email that is sent i agree and if all we were looking at was that e mail and that was the only thing we had then that would raise some questions but here it's not the only thing we have what we have is the representation in the complaint that on the phone all said we've got a deal at that point we've got a deal and if he later sins over some written form and this is the battle of forms california is very clear in contract law that the pro leavens rule does not bar evidence that he talked to the seller and they said you know hey we've got this other party that might be interested we need to get a little more wiggle room but it's too light he had already said we've got a deal and evidence for that is very clear because mr murray immediately wires the money if you look at mr murray's first offer that first offer very clearly says that the money would be paid in checks me in checks that would be sent over after everything was done they say you know we want the money right now ok if that's what you want i'll send over the money right now that is showing his acceptance of their offer but the statute of frauds comes into play here right yes and it  requires a sale of this amount a written contract yeah it does but banner entertainment in california law has been clear that if the parties have already made an agreement and it's understood that that agreement is supposed to be binding the point of having a statute of frauds is to make sure that we know what the specific terms of the contract are but the statute of frauds is supposed to prevent hard both ways here what they're trying to say is they made a deal they said we got a deal you sign it he signed paperwork send it back and then they say oh well wait a minute now we're going to hold off a little bit and are we are we're not going to say i mean that's that's the fraud this being perpetrated here ultimately they told him we've got a deal if you'll deposit the money and if you'll sign the paperwork and send it back that's what you need to do he did that in fact they went back and they said hey actually we need money right now and you missed one space when you initial here he did that what you have here is you have an offer by a seller asking for a specific type of performance a position for him before he performs then they turn around later and say oh no actually there was something else that you know which we did a few minutes on jurisdiction yes please on jurisdiction i'd like to draw the court's attention to excerpts of record pages ninety that they use that phrase all the time they say oh there was just one sided communication look at these pages ninety ninety one and two we have authors of christine scott mcnally mary rose randy chase kevin steve all rob tall lisa didn't injure george davis all of these are people from the cellar or from the broker who initiated communications directly with california and what's interesting your honor if you look at page one eighty five in the record this is the email where they're discussing it's from kevin steele golf and he's fording the e mail where they refer to mr murray as the buyer down in san francisco that's actually how they think of him the buyer down in san francisco they knew every time that this was a  is hey larry it's been a while since i've heard from you're are you still interested in the boat then we get the e mail from rob tof that says your file just hit my desk a are you still interested then we get e mail to e mail from george davis and those are e mails were george davis says hey this is a great time to buy a boat here's an e mail from kevin stiegel this is hey by the way the seller just dropped this price what actually happened is they know they've got communications all of the same person but they're solicitations they're directed specifically to a buyer they know is in california and that matters because this boat there's a reason they're not selling so many cans they're selling it to the buyer down in san francisco because this is someone who actually this is a practical place they haven't had an offer in seven eight years and now they have somebody who actually is interested that the authorities say that contract negotiations are exactly the kind of thing the thirty's say if it's just a one time transaction efficient isolated sale then that's not enough but already say we look to see whether their random how many boats were they trying to sell good morning your honor this council may please the court katherine malone on behalf of respondent discovery i'll call them a t s for everyone's convenience today we're here today to answer a simple simple question can an isolated transaction a boat initiated by a california resident force an alaska company to litigate in california simply because the would be purchaser happen to reside here the answer your honor's is no and for this reason this court should have from the district court's order dismissing this case to do otherwise overturns the clear authority and ignores fundamental principles of due process designed to protect a nonresident defendant such as a ts from being dragged into foreign courts about fair warning and subjected to the binding judgement of a form with which i meaningful contact the appellant would have you believe that answering a handful of emails and a few phone calls about this item for sale somehow changes the analysis it does not the event would also have you believe that using a license broker also somehow changes  show that they really want to sell this to somebody or if the e mails show that yes or i believe so if there was an intention to sell the boat to someone because they were in california yes but the the e mails that we have don't show that nor does the activity by the broker or a t s broker was in front of you i mean there what happened was the boat was posted for sale on this globally accessible passive web site it was merely advertised as the website itself doesn't you know conduct or facilitate transactions in any way and then the appellant admits that it came across this listing and then initiated contact with the broker and the broker actually didn't even believe that it was licensed to sell the boat in california initially and wanted to check these are not the actions of a party that is intentionally directing its activities towards california  boat was in washington yes your honor the boat was in washington and under the contract it was to change hands in washington so the contract had been accepted and it was not would have envisioned performance eight hundred miles away from  here and just to go back to the terms of the contract as you noted earlier there was no acceptance and had there been acceptance it would have been accepted in alaska under the terms of the contract so the contract would have been formed in california it would have been e mails very clearly show that the appellant was understood very clearly that there was no deal until it had been signed in fact the e mail that attach the signed contract that the document it contends contained its acceptance noted specifically that the pope was aware that the contract wasn't accepted and there was there was no deal that was and in fact in the record it five forty there's an e mail to mr m that says working on the working and details will sell or might have a deal can you wire full funds into escrow within the hour if need be and then please initial the last page of exhibit exactly the e mail that the opponent speaking of was clearly an invitation to make an offer and it was clear that the respondent a t s wanted to sell the boat by the end of the year but the email from kevin steel clearly notices and points out the existence of an external condition precedent it says if this other deal falls through then we might have a deal and since that deal never fell through that is in fact where the vote there are the terms and the possibility of this contract ever coming into existence never happened and so just all of the admissions made by palin establish that there was no personal remember i really just want to make two quick points on rebuttal one is that we're not focusing on the number of e mails for jurisdiction we're focusing on the quality and the direction of the e mails per jurisdiction and i think it's critically important that you have unsolicited offers where in the past but months later george davis says hey look at this are you interested those are e mails that are directed from the cellar into california that right there is probably enough to give jurisdiction also quickly on the liberty case the court's reasoning there it's not that conscious being for the oil is coming california it's that therefore the seller knew that the oil was being placed into commerce in california that something similar here the other thing i wanted to point out the if condition that judge ellis raised there this is the one way that buying about might be like buying a used car there's always another offer and that's how mr murray understood that is look you better act really fast we've got this other body that you know might want to buy and so he acts very quickly to show the except it's to do everything because he thinks he's got a deal and that's what he's doing all  what the status of the sale was right because he's worried that they're trying to back out of a contract now mr murray said and mr murray is an attorney he knows when he said we've got a deal we've got a deal he was extatic you can tell you the intersection he was at that day when they said we've got a deal  and if he's an attorney then certainly he should know that this transaction is covered by the statute of frauds and if there's nothing written any is nothing signed by the sell writing not reduced to writing yet right but that's it's was never reduced but that's the banner is all about if the part the fact that that's why it was breached the party's breached its banner doesn't say oh well even if you don't reduce it to writing if you already intended to and you express that you wanted to then if a party tries to back out that by that's the banner covers council what is the point in the statute of frauds the point is to actually defrauds is that we're supposed to know what the terms and we know that there's a binding contract