bankruptcy context and so were to rectify that problem congress enacted section five forty six e of the bankruptcy code and in all this court was trying to i think even of the court stated still some holes still some loose ends because congress in enacting five forty six c failed to define several key terms one of those key terms was the word receipt and have the same meaning absolutely your honor i think our argument starts with the first most basic fundamental position that the word received has a plain meaning and that means actual physical possession merit i believe is to see that this court has already also itself gone through this exercise when when the court was struggling with the question of what does the worker see need and then the court looked at the fact that congress in the five forty six e really just borrowed from the regulation statute that model uniform commercial code and receipt is the bond and uniform commercial code is actual physical possession and then in even says this if you want me to avail yourself of the rights of five hundred sixty one because you haven't sent a notice that the claimant still has its rights under five zero three b i'm these two statutes are talking about the word delivery because even under the cia's jean there's no definition of the world of the word receipt and that we tend to argue to the court that delivery actually means receipt is a very different concept and in fact a very different defined term and so i think there's actually maybe a good reason why the c s id doesn't even include a definition doesn't include the word received because ri reclamation that arise again once your right to stop goods in transit ceases will have to be governed by the nation state or the subject or jurisdiction where the goods are going to arrive so even under the c s i g the failure of of the c s i g to define or include the word receipt i don't think is in any way fail to argument in fact i think it supports it that these are two very separate distinct rights and the bankruptcy code then i would suggest to your honor that the these are the better score for the eastern district of virginia got it right in circuit city to when you talk about this exact begin by focusing on the statutory language of the bankruptcy code and i'd appreciate if you did to us judge crosses interaction with mr berkeley is it not reach those consistent with one another you sure do believe that is significant and the significance arises out of the fact that in five forty six c there's an express reference to the u c c and to the  significant because they didn't do it in five zero three they did do it in five forty six eight however the key to this case is that this is not a domestic shipment like mariner oil sure this is an international shipment specific rules apply yeah i think everyone agrees that if if this were not a bad group c case you read c i s g l a it's not you see the way i did it your arguments are perfectly sound but but it seems to me that you're forgiven it is inviting us to allow the parties to alter the text of the bankruptcy code with the word receive means by contract contemplates that there could be underlying either state or international law that would control the application of a particular section of the bankruptcy code and here when you look at triborough three and a word  use and since this is an international contract everybody agrees is governed by the c i s g b and the bankruptcy code is not intended to bugger cut the parties agreements and the applicable law is intended to compliment the answer is a probably could but that's not the case here well that's that's troubling because now you've got parties altering federal obligations because parties can't contract away the bankruptcy braverman is that if the parties can define as they see fit with the word receive means and if the equal terms of the c i s g can define as they see fit with the word  different law for purposes of interpret in the code and here it is plainly contemplated bet if you have a contract that is governed by the c i s judy the bankruptcy code must be read in the context of the c i  and here we're talking about what is the term under the c i s g received me and there you look to what the parties expectations were in making this contract but the supreme court has told us that we don't necessarily drop a definition from a federal statu congress having addressed in the enacting legislation of this section that we're addressing there's a cross reference to a provision that had already been interpreted by federal courts including our court physical receipt so when congress and next and then get to that section and doesn't change the the receipt language that has been interpreted by the federal courts and in the same legislation oil case and i think marital it was significant because it actually supports our position mary was specifically refers to two seven zero two and then from there refers which defines physician and if you go to the facts of that case domestic shipment f o b to your car it's unclear under that case whether or not the new jersey trouble was in the new york harbor not discussed in the case  but even if it were to be f o b new york or the case turn to the fact that the seller retained the right to stop delivery until the goods were in ultimately constructed possession meets that standard he did you are stupid and i think it probably does but the significance is that under begin code terms once the shipment passes the wills of the ship in what circumstances would you look at the cia s g to determine the definition of receipt i think under any contract it is governed by the cia s g because there is no body of law under the bankruptcy code defining receipt so when there's a gap in those terms you need to look at the underlying contract law so the case really does come back to that either this is it gets really exercise in which case the cia has g applies t your make only one brief point unless you have other questions about this is that in fact certainly congress knows how to refer to a book about law under the bankruptcy code and there are many examples but i would point you to one example which i think is very instructive which is five zero two on the allowance of claims since in fact fiber to be one which talks about such a claim is enforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor under any agreement