by virtue of two things one you point to reaches back into the ninety's so even if that were renewal it wouldn't be a renewal that was of acted by the  box stores correct correct and if i read your briefing quickly that something in the complaint correctly that something which you've said is something that your client absolutely didn't agree to it was a unilateral change by  e international can you can you point us to any authority for the proposition that a change in business strategy an egregious who by the other side constitutes a contract contract and them going to the box stores this recession is that it's a change in the contractual relationship that allows you to as a renewal or a new contract right bridge would in fact be a bridges we'll hear because there were specific could do that well but could you do that because part of the what's going on here is there's an integration clause with this contract right and that that ought to have some meaning well it would except under ohio la modification made a modification of a contract i always thought that was two parties agreeing that their contractual relationship is going to change because of something they either modify it because they get together and they sign a new paper or they modify it because they both through a course of conduct over time manifests their assent that is both parties manifest their scent so that's what a modification is and what i guess i'm we were captured you were you could sue right if you thought this was a breach of contract you had legal remedies i suppose that's probably sure you're either except this was the only source of  this did work change in your brief and i didn't see much maybe any response to the ohio constitutional law argument being made by the other side they they say th can have the effect you're talking about because it would be in violation of constitution that kind of retroactive application you make several arguments based on contracts cause us constitution what do we activists effect this court doesn't need to reach that issue because these are two different issues it can decide this case on the narrower basis this is not a retroactive application if there was a material change to the contract after law that fills in where the parties have agreed that the parties here did agree and what they agreed to was either side can walk away from this thirty days any time without any reason given it's just that well so they had an agreement there's no gap to fill any case law that you can point to that says that independent business person tracking with suppliers zisha nothing of an employee these are independent businesses right yes yes dismissed there can be no existing obligation but was breached that gives rise to the talking points wait a second are you saying that if you lose your contract claims you actually are a beneficiary of the losses of those claims implied one merchantability those old face type i understand ohio allow permits to disclaiming of the implied warranty of merchantability how how do you get around that not virtual and then you cite the statute i look at their complete and i am having a hard time figuring out report was for this point was focused on the damages and the fact that the the there was no allegations that and this is when you go to pages eighteen and nineteen or further into our very far that is what the district court said this record said straight up you didn't you didn't you know in dismissing this said well you didn't even give us the the elements of the of the statutory claim and you said they didn't do it and they did it i'm reading it i'm looking at  factual statements in support of that kenya now with that piece too because when i was looking at that it looked to me like they went through in some careful detail you know but they thought you folks had not provided equipment that met a certain  alleging specific facts and it is how's that falls short of making it well the six claim won't be six satisfactory length i think your honor the inconsistency is when they're talking about  the issue with the repairs and they're as council i'd intended earlier the fact that they weren't making as much money on the repairs and i talk about all the different that's the context in which there's being described there are many repair that they did none of which suggests however that they couldn't sell the products because of any of those things in fact to the contrary they indicated they sold all of that's a truly remarkable and the fact that they came back for repair work doesn't make them built this is my whole business is by you telling me to be here exclusive deal or i'm not working with anybody else's products so if you give me bad product that hits the goodwill of my business the value of inventory decreases this i mean you can deliver a defective product node or it doesn't mean we can or that we should or that we do no no no but the allegation is that there was an untold number of fractures and breaks in  forty year period and you wind those up and you say look at all these terrible things that have happened to these products by the way which mr braun has company have been paid for for that repair work for all those years without complaint but now missing i'm missing your logic you've got to help me out well where did you want them to say about why they thought your product was had deteriorated over time in its quality and was costing them money and maybe just  them in the shoes of a consumer where there's a there's an ohio case that puts them in the shoes of the consumer right and so we're going out on page eighteen and nineteen of our beliefs are with about seven cases we don't believe that that's the law we don't believe they stand in the shoes of know i would advice go nowhere in this section or any other section of the advice go to the uniform commercial code is or stating the fact that only the ultimate consumer may sue for breach implied warranty merchantability that's a pretty serious opinion from the ohio supreme court you have something to overrule dealers he certainly are we could not do anything that would be for a discriminatory purpose or would violate some other law but here they were terminated for any reason and the fact that they can come up with well here's some reasons that might be bad i don't think changes the fact that this is and i think this this particular contract makes it easier for us because this is a mutual time dilation they could have terminated just for their cause just like we could that's what the parties agreed to and that's really the point honor is that there was there's no basis for a breach of contract case here there's just simply no breach because the parties did what they create and so when i thought you were to ask me or about when you talk about what mr disclaimer of the warranty of merchantability not something by the way that the district court here lied on it all how do how do you get that into the mix given that this stage that's it so you put that in front of this in the in the appendix but yeah we probably look at that or is that something for you to take up and deal with later on in the case maybe it helps you in summary judgment maybe it doesn't yeah i think it came up in that warnock versus national football case i think that's were we reference that it's on page sixteen of our brief i think that's where the reference came from and we just addressed it i don't know that from the district of new jersey that's that'll tell you what you need to know about our right as it dealer to bring these claims what's your response to are that case it is very different case than what we're talking about here because well we're not talking that case i think they actually have a ph a contract and here we don't we just don't there's it was a different contract  there wasn't anything in that case that i thought other than there was a product which was about all right thank you thank you