and accurate to observe that the congress and acting the petroleum marketing practices act intended to reserve preserve a measure of flexibility for franchisers in implementing marketing decisions at the same time as congress was clearly expressly regulating the power franchise or the terminator franchise or not a new franchise relationship though the record in this case shows time after time the franchise or in this case failing to comply with the expressed statutory requirements of the petroleum marketing practices act and yet that this record excused those failures seaquest either excuse them or overlooked them citing the general policy of flexibility here on is that allows the concept of flexibility to eat up the statute to the detriment of the class of persons intended that the protected by the statute the  the one of those errors was simply goes to the fundamental basis of the original grounds for non renewal used by tasco in this case which was that it was their burden of proof to show that they had lost the right meet that burden of proof and they can't just meet the proof of this also declaration well that's what we want to do when when we can even if that even if the courts over looked at that there were problems with with  both the original disclosure required by the statute and also with the also with the notice of not renewal the task ok the original disclosure required by the statute specified a date for was given only thirty five days prior to that respective date not the ninety days normally required by the statute of course the statute says if it would not be reasonable franchiser can show that would not be reasonable to give ninety days you can give a lesser period but that requires the franchisor come forward with evidence a trial that it would not be reasonable to give ninety days the truth is house who had complete control the landlord was taking the position that they into the record showing what hospital was doing with regard to environmental cleanup while while the pellets were continuing to operate that the service station there that you can exist side by side and have in fact have been having that they think they have a point range russian they don't like it so they they think well what should we do and they say here you know what i want to do is we're going to make you take this new leaks and it's going to have some provisions that make it evaporate any time we the district court should have taken our suggestion to focus on that issue in the case to the exclusion of whatever gone on before because basically they changed the game i think all right we're willing to go forward here's a new lease except these terms i think that became a twenty eight or to be three case concerning a franchise offer rather than rather than the ground that they were previously relying on i'd also like to the expiration of lease provision also says it but you can insist on getting a release from the property owner with regard to environmental contamination which is what they really really wanted in this case  thousand dollars bond i think didn't have any any problem with that after this new franchise agreement came along with the increased vastly increased rent requirement that they that they  one thousand dollars and they're not paying it so obviously that's our that's for damages under the under clear injunction what's what's wrong with that is the one you just can't make up a number and then say that's your damages it doesn't take into account the fact that they're selling just subsidized the rent at that location it's possible had always been willing to accept less ransom from the dealer that was paying for the landlord for the right to have a business there to which they could sell  walters even saw that remark about that a closing argument so then to go from there to say from a twenty five thousand dollars on two hundred and twenty thousand dollars require these folks to put up one hundred twenty thousand dollars in cash for the right this case in terms of requiring the extension of another night after it's just closed they stream has expired that the only purpose for holding over on the part of the franchise or is literally this shut down the is advocating this hold over right for the continuation of the franchise which is absolutely hamstring the franchise or who's come to the end of this of these terms and you can you can approach you two different ways you can say look on you can also look at it as one of these other similar events where again that the purpose of the holy mover that we're talking about this is not a new base term not a new three year term by bill with the intention of marketing motor or it's possible to conduct that cleanup in conjunction with operating the service station but it's not necessarily the ideal way to do it typically as a accident tenant you're going to tender possession you're going to clean everything up we certify the condition of the tanks we need to create baseline data and how extensive the contamination is if you continue operating in this room you and i'm going west of new releases from any part of the system you if you go on are you actually  going back to your or your question your honor if we're going to get into a dispute that really isn't even regulated by the pm ph the lease relationship between the franchise or in its underlying las you that the mere fact that we that we agreed to a continuation of the effective non renewal date somehow made it all wrong we had to go back to square one and given you ninety days i think that's elevating a preoccupation with procedure completely divorced from subject some in the purpose of the notice is to give you plenty of time to make adjustments to either stay there move on and wind down your business and in this case the purpose was to well as it was for a long time franchise again the court the district court found that was done i mean we laid it out there i don't think they ever read it i think the record is very confusing as to whether they ever read the disclosure there's all this argument about how it could have been information and all we did was extend the term to give them an opportunity to stay in possession every single thing we did in terms of extensions that would fall for were designed to and to advance the policy objectives  so i'm going to say there's a serious question and then completely on his own just tell her went on to say how why can't you just do it again i mean they're arguing whether you agree with it or not they're arguing that every time you  five thousand dollars in the end counsel for plaintiff at that time was arguing that this in all the damages you complain about the fact that you lose money at this retail outlet the fact that you pay more rent month and that's how i restate all expecting begin to be in front of judge tell then we have the reassignment i don't know that it's going to walter was quite clear on the whole past history but he certainly took time and it's in the all of that is outside the record he just told you now he's asked you to take his word for it the the court to make it's a terminations based on what's in the record the court auto pli the burden of proof that lot that lay on his shoulders a trial under section  concern of voluntary expiration of the lease or a failure to accept an auction as some of the police comes through natural term in the franchise or says i do naturally freshers or says i'm not going to extend it and in the course of people in the trial record all of this is facts that he wants to come up with now to justify decision and in retrospect that can't be justified on the record in this case which is why reversal out of the reversal out of the in order here your honor again we're not trying to seek any preferential pre provision we're trying to seek the remedy the congress want us to have which is a continuation of the franchise relationship unless and until it is brought to a clo the provisions and patrolling marking practices act