what fleet the appellate argument is wait a minute we're also purchase money secured credit here therefore we're also sharks the issue is how can two different people both be first very secured creditors the first argument is this that they're not purchased money secured credit or they're simply a secured creditor they have a lane on that piece of equipment there's no doubt about that is that a purchase money lent if it is and they are purchased money then the question becomes who should be first when both sides are first to call it doesn't say what do you do on both sides or first so that the question the most important question really is are they purchase money secured because they create that we are face a we are because the code says your purchase money if you have advanced money to acquire right and the collateral they say we advance money to acquire right what right what rights that the debtor enterprise acquire plate says we gave the federal money so i there's a contract enforceable contract there's no doubt about that about six months later fleet put up some of the money to make some of the down payment a few months after that the equipment was actually delivered the purchase price was a million yes how money enterprise the fire didn't acquire any additional rights i go to a car dealership and i find a ferrari i like for one hundred thousand dollars and  dealership talk to my bank and they'll only give me sixty thousand dollars when the morning they say not to worry will lend you the other forty so i get forty from my bank in forty from the dealership and required to be made product would have been shipped but for that price a lot of speculation really i mean but the reality is you don't hand over a piece of equipment or you're supposed to get a six hundred thousand dollars payment without getting the payment that's what the testimony was but i think their hand over the equipment without getting the third payment which was only one hundred thousand was a lot smaller faith and shipped the equipment before the payment was made even thought they couldn't have to use something that i would say it's a fact question if the payment was a main was made to allow the buyer to acquire rights in the collateral then they would be isn't that what the bankruptcy tr stop the shipments under the uniform commercial code we could have stopped the shipment once the payment was made we couldn't stop the shipment i mean you agree if you both got purchase money security interest penzeys yes not oh no what we are to argue with you about that because the second part of the argument actually is what is going to i guess expand a little bit on your your first part the statute says that you get the purchase money  interest if it's taken by a person who by making advances or incurring an obligation gives value to the debtor to acquire rights where was the use all of collateral now are we talking here about the use of all in other words that the second payment was necessary to get the equipment into the hands of the debtor so that the debtor could use it so the statute itself seems to seems to imply that you can have to two people at separate points in the stream of commerce having a purchase money interest or response to that  is actually on my way up here yesterday i was reading this harvard law review article by mr gilmore professor gilmore's at that fleet cited called purchase money security answers and he talked me highlights the fact that it's ownership rights and he made the comment that or the use of man that the drafters contemplated that there would be purchase money security interest in lisa possession where they really the only thing being transferred his possession and he made the comment that that was kind of where the article was written in one nine hundred sixty three but that was kind of weird he didn't really know how that was work going to work but it was lease i don't think the draftsman meant that and still it's just by making a payment by doing what you said you would do if there were ten things that had to be done before the quitman would be actually turned over by doing one of those i guess sort of i mean philosophically you could say well they've acquired rights because they didn't breach they're not in trouble because they did what they said they could was designed to protect sellers who finance their property yes the baptists right no seller of a quip no seller of large equipment who was interested in financ