coffee in those two cases the court both concluded that manufacturers representatives were not dealers for the purpose of the fair dealership act and we believe that the central issue the central my state that was made by the district court in this case is the very core question of whether or not p m c had the right to sell based upon the factual act record that was presented on the summary judgment motion here are the distinctions that we believe are critical st in the for search case there was a written contract which pacifically precluded forster from directly dealing with customers to negotiate price that was something that the manufacturer of work did nd of all in the john made case in that  reps jobs were especially to generate leads and promote acceptance of the product and that is right in those cases but the difference and it's very significant with respect to p m t was even though we took the exclusivity away from p m t they still have the right to sell our property the nd thing he said was we've never turned down p m t sale think the factual record does not support that conclusion i don't believe that the factual record in this case supports that conclusion at all in fact what yana seeking did was required purchasers to carry any inventory of you on the sneaky product p m t itself only purchased the amas art i'm sorry p m t sister company only purchased on behalf of pm piece customers machines when the customers did machine which is pm to use sister company and then was transferred to the customer so in those instances yes there was an inventory but was there an inventory that was maintaining the answer here's how much you charge the payoff do you have to charge this much for somebody to play golf here if you collect it and give the money dots and that's still a dealer to me there's just no way to reach the conclusion that it's reached in this case because there are there are things that happen that are that in the record for example in the benson face the golf professional sold things like t shirts and run equipment things like that  i believe that the district court was wrong in its decision here but even the most recent case that was presented to this court what a judge would have just recently certified a case and it's left  brokers you're going to do it it's up to you do it tell us how to do it and we'll do it in this particular situation we have a very direct conflict between wisconsin supreme court's decision and how dealerships are to be analyzed and the previous decision in force or in the previous decision of the sport and john many we believe that the  s quoted in benson that there is quote rarely an obvious answer close quote regarding the status of the dealership that is exactly what the court said yes and i guess  risk of being where how is what we're talking about here law if there is rarely an obvious answer and there are i mean is it is there how do we let me put a different way how do we tell the difference it based upon forrester and and john made where the manufacturers negotiated directly with the customer here there was no customer contact other than  name and vote the rd prong of our summary judgment motion was that there was no community of interest between the parties this report opted to rule solely on the basis number two that the p m t had no ability to the ability to sell off is the ability to promote the sale because what the record reveals in this case is that p m t made knoll direct sales to any cost not they made  them he quite clearly describes enough to survive summary judgment there in his own words he calls p m t exactly what it was a dealer that's how they were listed on the website  a product in a reseller that is irrelevant to the question of whether or not p m t machinery sales is a dealer has the ability to specifically said simply because john made did more than it was required to do under the contract and the things it did more than it was required to do under the act was warranty work was training was other install and train that was part of the oral agreement part of the contract that is part of what makes them the deal and what we have in the argument that was just presented to you up what benson found to be a dealer for those reasons we believe that summary judgment was inappropriate in this case when you have a very specific statement made by the general manager got to meet these and if you don't then we'll give you we'll tell you we'll give you an opportunity your and then if you don't make it will turn terminated so we get the answer that is under the statute the manufacturer cannot unilaterally impose and they have to so know the agreement pieces of equipment yes the only way that there could not was not indefinite because the statute specifically says that a dealership going to be terminated for good cause one pop form of good causes bankruptcy one point form up with causes if you don't sell and so it's not indefinite that the dealer still has the right to terminate the dealership but they have to do so on notice and right to cure and forklift costs all of those are issues that were not reached in