mr cox you may see continued the farming business through his son jim way i'm sure has a power of attorney i'm going to be extremely brief today on this because i think unlike the case we argued this morning the issues are more finite not only plenty of time to answer any questions paid and the difference in terms of the figures that we're talking about are seventy thousand in terms of interest on top of the five hundred thousand or what was alternately tendered pending resolution of this which is about one hundred eighty six thousand dollars so they're not in controversy problem in this case is that my client does not have a copy of that writing all of the affidavit of family and syndicates that she remember seeing it in writing that the extension occurred in writing there is evidence that there was an extension of the due date on this original no for five hundred thousand so that mr williams could buy additional product from fs as a matter of fact there's only one of these contracts in dispute there were three toll contracts for the farm operation this is the one that's in dispute before this court today so the issue is whether or not the guy was extended and then whether or not given the dispute over whether or not there was a default the issue of what interest in the fees had to be paid we believe that the proper standard on this case is that no believe that the illinois uniform commercial code applies to this case for the following reasons and of course the striking difference between mr lynch terms argument and our argument mr lynch common service that the only credit controls and the on than of course i don't think is in dispute in terms of requiring extensions be in writing the only uniform commercial code is more broad than that is to not it does not require a specialist in writing necessarily and the court can go yeah and i've identified in the early part of my briefs and statutory interpretation principles and the fact that the only uniform commercial code provisions that we believe come into play in this case were adopted after the only credit act to presume that the only credit act is the sole remedy here on this case would be to assume that the general assembly intended to leave the only credit act completely intact and then pass the only uniform commercial code which was passed later in time the operative provisions here which are to a one  and to a one viz three interest sense leave the provisions indicating the security agreements affect according to its terms between parties and then you look at course of dealing between the parties and so forth these provisions were enacted after the only credit if you look on page sixty eight of my brief we will extensively from the contract between fs and mr williams and that contract states quote the company shall have the right to the immediate exercise of all remedies of  stop all notwithstanding the contract language under these circumstances again my client believes the extension was in writing the problem is we don't have a copy and fs did not produce a copy and invest a nice there is an extension in writing so our first line position would be that the green it was extended in writing it's unfortunate that that's just not in the record what promissory estoppel and i will stop equitable stop will obviously apply to cases in which an agreement is reached between the parties a one party relies on the agreement it's reasonable to do so they do so to their detriment and so we believe both of those apply we believe that if us believe that u c c applied because they mentioned it and cited in our contract  extensive my client service that there is or was we were not even allowed for my client was not even allowed to pursue discovery further in this case other than a simple denial of a request for production of documents from fs certainly there was no trial on the issue this summary judgment was granted to fs so the concern here is the there is a dispute effect and if the court considers that as you defect was sufficient to allow this case to proceed to some sort of contested hearing with testimony making people from fs appear and testify as to the circumstances of the extension and one would presume they would testify truthfully and my clients would testify truthfully that the court would have had before agreement because it places a lien on certain types of property during the pendency of this agreement so i believe that the contract suffices it qualifies as both the essence of my argument is that the only creditor here requires an extension to be in writing asks you to the grass is the timing of the alleged extension agreement relative to when the assignment was made so high it assigns to fs financial services right and then subsequent to that if somebody gets that there was an extension agreement entered into i would any subsequent extension on line the original  but i understand the essence of your question there is perhaps a little confusion on tapes the original line of credit mode and security agreement as they did april twenty second twenty ten and there's reference in there  the amount of the credit as well as that's terms how it's going to be paid back both the april both the document signed in april and the document they didn't they make reference to the other document so i think they're fully integrated the terms of the other the interesting part of how that plays into this case is mr williams in his affirmative defense says the document was orally modified april twenty submit that is a very good reason why the credit agreement that was passed because between the time the affirmative defense was alleged in the answer to the complaint i replied to say that's barred by the credit agreement sack and it appears to us that that point people thought oh that isn't good we don't have a writing so we better come back and find of a different date which is june and then come up with an a aspersions on people for credibility but they're saying well i think i saw agreement that was in writing that extended the note but i don't know where it is and i don't have a copy of it and i can't produce  that's why we have a previous act in this state to address situations like this so i think that there's no question that the documents flow together they're fully integrated and for spite that fact there still is not a the time in farming credits extended by chemicals and its product so that it meets the definitions of section one of the act section two describes the document must be in writing and must set forth the terms of the party parties and must be signed by the parties section three is the one that really is operative here because it talks about actions that are not consider credit agreements and they very key factor is  in agreement by a creditor to modify or amend an existing thread agreement or to otherwise take certain actions switching to the end including rescheduling or extending its phone with sunder an existing creditor so clearly protected all parties as to what the terms are of their remit so that being the case we believe it's clear the affirmative defense is barred as a matter of law oh my client filed a motion for s these people if they had an opportunity to seek any discovery that they wanted and the one thing we got was a last minute on a request to produce that was they before the hearing on the motion for summary judgment and we responded immediately saying there isn't  there's nothing there there was an appeal of motion to reconsider any motion to clarify the court's order and you know i would like to touch on that just for a second i think the affidavits heard the arguments of counsel no court and it made a specific finding that there was no written agreement extending the credit agreement presented and that means that the court found that the credit agreement applied and it properly granted summary judgment on that basis so i think clearly my flight proceeded in a proper manner the court ruled in a proper a trial because the motion was great there was an extension granted so they could purchase additional product i don't believe that refuted although legally refuted i don't believe it was factually in the trial court they didn't purchase client is deprived of a day in court under circumstances that they've provided affidavits indicated that there was an extension there was an exceptional writing to do if the court doesn't accept the writing part of my client's never got a chance to testify as to the facts of this extension spending more money in fs as a result of the extension buying additional product because the court accepted f s s argument that despite the u c c language in the contract that fs extension agreement was and the reason i ask is that it appears that the only answer an affirmative defense that was filed in april two thousand and twelve it's a lives that the time the affirmative defense was granted and it was basically referring to the original contrary it is my understanding standing here in august of two thousand and fourteen that the affidavit provided by