that is an issue in this matter i believe that the trial court has improperly determined that it is in dispute i believe that it is our position that whether or not it's a two or three year is an issue of fact they could not have been determined at the trial court level such an issue which is i believe the primary issue in this matter should have been decided by the jury from mr osborne and from mr foley and i believe the fact that you have the conflicting opinions is why that decision could not have been needed at the trial court level and i believe which gets answered the first era of the trial court the trial court fed this dispute by making that decision when you look at the record and you look at the scope of this purchase the decision that the parties did not agree after the time of the sale as to the gains and the repurchase price it defies logic we're talking about a transaction that's in excess of three million dollars we're talking about a piece of farm property that has been held in mr osborne's family for generations are going to trial that s i was born a one time so that the will no longer interested in giving property been that is not right no that is not correct your honor there's a contest about that i believe there is a contest your honor i believe we need to put things in perspective the the deal the alternate purchase sale occurred in march april two thousand that's when the parties actually so if either deal some of the property at that time mr perley firms and reiterated to mr osborne in front of his son that i will be here for them too are all agreements based on the terms that we agreed to the three year and the three million plus ten percent the articles of agreements when you look at them are basically a sale of land it's a contract for sale of the land by no means can it be construed or considered and offshoots repurchased there's a down payment listed in the fact or he did sign the articles immediately after signing the articles he said to mr standard i don't agree to the terms in this agreement these are not the terms of on three million plus ten percent we defended how we was seeking three million at ten percent compound for the three years that he held the property along with additional costs for operate the the property itself my client has always maintained that he had a three year run he has never indicated to mr curly or to anyone else that he was falling back or the sign is not what controls here i believe it's the over action of mr azam although he signed the document it being there after we're not saying three days two hours within thirty seconds he said you know what only he says i got a three year out of him at what point and how the exercise of that is a very good question your honor the problem that we have here is that the property was sold the property was sold shortly thereafter march twenty second two thousand and two my client was prevented from actually exercising his three year lines in april two thousand and three he couldn't take any action will not purchasing the property under the terms of the agreement he's always maintained his three year right to repurchase he retains the three year right to repurchase that was his intention he was not going to purchase because of the sale of the writers in perpetuity them you can exercise of five years later eight years with absolutely not your honor i believe that mr osborne would i had to take some trade over from live action before april twentieth of two thousand and three she had up until that time to either tender oh written notice or at least to orally notified mr perley that i intend to exercise my to them in two thousand and two i believe so your honor i don't know the specifics of the art and that was after the conversation that it was going to buy i believe that was shortly after the conversation that mr osborne indicated he would purchase under the articles the terms of the articles your honor the second portion i believe that the corpse trial could err by deciding that the reason for the satisfaction number one the cord which they use the actual articles of agreement does not refer to the right to repurchase stain and i on behalf of the police at the outset there's one thing i guess i concur with there's this is a classic case of fraud the question is on which side of the of the caption does the fraud exist  ble argues that mr osborn made statements to mr standard you can search the record in vain for those statements because mr standard claimed privilege for them in his deposition the other thing that obviously is going on here is that after mr osborne indicated he was not going to repurchase the farm the police sold it at a profit because values were improving but that doesn't necessarily suggest that mr police should have been painting his seven or eight percent mortgage at the bank for three years compound and so that he could then have a  they sign they negotiate they had a core of the satisfaction occurs with the delivery of the document to the attorney which binds the pearl is to sell on those terms if mr osborne because i believe they're where they're unequivocal and they really give substance to this matter those are very briefly as follows in two thousand and one mr amore whose attorney said that he always initially he said unequivocally no i wasn't going to say anything then after he meets with his attorneys and we reconvene and there's more testimony you'll find later in the deposition he says well i think i said no not on those terms he never told anybody that and he admits he never told anybody that if you read his testimony it was his secret intention and the last is the only option contract binds the seller  with with with mr oz morns approach in this case the first is and we talked about this the trial court never will that i was more hands free you're right repurchase the trial court ruled that he had  time and the last thing is repeatedly we hear that mr osborne reserved or preserve his right to a three year option but if you read his testimony he never told anyone about it and if you read the summary judgment was properly entered this case it's an oral agreement and oral right to repurchase the parties take two different positions it's our position that mr early and a promise if you're it benefited him that was sent to mr perley because mr ochterlony very concerned that mr perley was not going to honor the agreement i believe that dryers were were going to be moved the property was being mined that was part of the agreement back get mr perley to highly written knowledge of three year or two where he had no confirmation of what's going on he sees that the properties be changed he's got a feeling that the properties going to be taken from him so what he did was he included a draft writing a three year contract whether or not there's a written document that sets forth with the letter i don't care it was a contract letter to mr wallace so you know what you are that's why in my reply because i believe the the farm or not answer i told him no correct and the record also contains a clarification i told him no not really terms of those articles and your  question is also has the during that discussion you never said the whole i still have a three year option if you answer i didn't say anything i don't believe he was required to see the bits on your honor he's always had the three year right to repurchase he has guess clarification the trial court took a look at that letter and did not find it as an admissions a matter of fact the trial court ruled that nowhere in that letter did mr osborne it neat that he had to your right to repurchase i think that's very important because that is already a finding by the court at that time i want to sell that that's the sentence jen was born is a guaranteed option for two years to buy back the far from jim early jim early took title the farm one for twenty one yeah the option would clarify with respect to satisfaction is its the agreement to do with thing in consideration of the settlement of the claim it is not said that here is not the terms of the right to repurchase it's the actual