is the well established phrase remain in full force and that if you look at paragraph three of the two thousand and one fourth amendment after lease term is modified it states that all of the provisions of the one nine hundred seventy release remain in full meetings with respect to the nine hundred seventy purchase option is unfair as i have to convince this board that the well established phrase remain in full force in effect actually means to reinstate to see if i could find a case that actually defines the freighters remain in full force and that quite frankly i couldn't find one i think the reason for that is it has a common sense i mean it's very well established to remain in full force and that means what it was  and i think with respect to modifications much the same contract law wise and that is it has to be clear it has to be bargained for and it has to be expressed in pleasure and  language is decidedly for and in this particular case you still regardless of your looking at modification law or specific performance you get back to looking at the actual language and  asking what does it mean and regardless if it is the original language or modified language or you want to look at it first visit performance it has because there's a higher degree of clarity in this case m plaza quite frankly has admitted explicitly that this entire situation could simply be the result of a mistake it flat out it knew that at the trial even though it had missed it this entire situation with two different competing thousand and one with men that they did not even mention the existence of the need to know the seventy fourth amendment i think it is significant here are to the extent that it is significantly as to the confusion in this case because we do not know why it was not mentioned is that further evidence of the state i don't know what it is your honor he could very well he said we also need to take into account that with respect hundred seventy fourth amendment there's been some argument that it was written out of existence because it wasn't referred to in the recycles of the two thousand and one for the moment however the parties to this day are still operating the recycles of the two thousand and one when amendment i think it's a good indication that there was confusion between the parties the third is the state between the parties i believe different counsel was involved over the course of the many different because you have to look at the phrase as a whole and the phrase is over visions of the night he said the land lease remain in full force and that there was no stated intent making modifications whatsoever and if we look at the rec to the two thousand and one with the moment it stays that the purpose of the amendment was to simply extend the least there was no expressed intent to actually change the purchase option whatsoever and with respect to the purchase option and all of the provisions i whatever exist is going to remain in full force in effect beyond this day there used an example of the purchased option i don't believe that you can use language same everything's going to remain unchanged and we're going to give you an example of what is a complete contrast to that language that i don't think is a modification so i don't believe that modification law applies to the two thousand and one fourth amendment when it comes to anything other than th seven and ninety seven the numerical hears i can see where you would think that you're out of it but when you look at it in terms of looking at the contract as a whole under the traditional rules of africa instruction i don't think that you can specifically in force so that is what live in the closet is seeing then if summary judgment is reversed in favor of middle class well then i do not believe summary judgment could ever be that no declaration could forty one years has developed managed to maintain a shopping center on behalf of its two members the elite cohen and mr little on this property that city issue today now there are eight operative documents the way that we see it there's two leases is six in and that is the universe relevant material for this court to consider and on this on this ruling  because the documents that were executed in two thousand and one are clearly inconsistent with an application of the one nine hundred ninety seven fourth amendment two thousand one hundred standing has to control and so by inference it cancels anything that goes before that is inconsistent with it because the fundamental i think the primary objective in these during the contract is to give fair intended effect to the intent of the parties the intent of the parties in two thousand won is is court noted that because a documents were executed simultaneously and as part of the same agreements in meeting of the mind they can be and should be interpreted to gather well those two documents were executed at the same time contract modification imminent that the last meeting of the minds the final intention of the parties has got to control for every control over any previous understanding just a oz in a contract  each subsequent amendment is going to take precedence over and control any conflict in term between and from anything that happened before now if the question is was there a mutual mistake of fact with law which is really i think  what what your honest question is is is geared toward is was there a mistake did he intend to make this change i can't speak to that and really nobody can at this point one of the two people who is at the table has passed away we don't have the capacity to make that parties in two thousand and one was that there's this purchase option which i think is by the said by a contract is sufficiently definite and certain to be enforceable if the court is unable from the terms and provisions they're out of under proper rules o purchase option as stated in paragraph eight of the nine hundred seventy one lease the fact that they previously had decided something else is not we believe relevant to the court's consideration this point because they change their mind we don't know why they changed their minds we cannot we can't go back and address that only now is that the last the latest and greatest meeting of the minds was that this piece of property would be subject to  cancels your honor i agree that there is an inconsistency obviously between the nine hundred ninety seven documents and the two thousand one that's undeniable they cannot  because of that we look to the later in time we have to look to the later time it's the last meeting of minds between these parties and i think that the the question of the use of the term  to the nine hundred eighty two days agreement that was executed simultaneously which goes into some detail about which properties will be subject and these two together in the lessee can trigger this option and so on it's fourth amendment that is true however the last meeting of the minds was that the nine hundred seventy purchase option would control that intention that expressed intention is inconsistent with also in forcing the one nine hundred ninety seven fourth sources this case was decided on the contract i miss and that was it there on the other sources so we did it mission by middle positive that the two amendments are irreconcilable are in conflict that any theories exist and the big admission this entire case is simply the result of a mistake with an admission like that whether we did to my vacation law or rules of contract construction all of that but frankly my take  land lease agreement is the law change with regard to the to the provisions that are not modification or contract is interpreted as including an agreement to reach sherman in inconsistent dreams in the prior contract no argument one step further your honor literally all prior amendments that the parties that enact it over the years would also vanish and everything would revert back to the original january twelfth one thousand seven the lease which would be utter nonsense and complete chaos i would just like to remind the world that i think one of the initial trial judge in this case judge heyman ruled on a motion for but frankly it's a very interesting situation because of the hazard mr cohen we would presumably investigate what the world had on in two thousand and one where the nine hundred ninety seven fourth amendment was not even refer but i don't think there's going to be more facts the least arguments are what they are but again if we even get to facts your honor in my opinion that means that the contract language is in b because the only reason we get to