tradition but unfortunately both providing any written factual or legal findings the trial for denied was builder's motion we're here today asking this court overturned that order now before i dive into my argument today just like to highlight that the standard of review for this appeal is the no call so this course stands on equal footing with the trial or to side of issues in the case now i'm going to spend most of my time here today just highlighting two key points number one the federal arbitration act does apply to the at plies all contracts involving interstate commerce and so i submit that the first question this court should consider today is what connections between the sub contracts and interstate commerce are required in order to invoke the thought of arbitration and the answer that question is that the connections between contracts and commerce need not be very extensive the school of congress is commerce hollower under the united states constitution is extremely broad so even commercial activities that might appear on their face through the fall and so when determining yeth the federal trade schneck applies in this case wife builder submits that this court take a very broad view of the meaning of the words interstate commerce now by way of example  found more than sufficient to involve threat of arbitration and now in this case there are actually a multitude of connections between the sub contracts and interstate commerce and i'd like to highlight seven of those connections here today first all it committed is certain obligations directed to wal mart and therefore has a connection with that arkansas corporation third or the sub contractors and suppliers that furnish labor materials to this project came from more connected to its contract but the reality has been a project of this goal all the sub contractors work is interconnected so for example many of the sub contractors that perform on the project before are you right directly impacted its work this team are from all set the state of illinois for and use of this project is directly connected with interstate commerce and again already in this brief contents that this is really just an illinois retail establishment  to be selling goods within the state of illinois but i think that really was here to rise at the end use of a two hundred four thousand square foot big box retail store owned by a multinational corporation i think that's an end use that is directly connected with interstate than perhaps any of the other pieces we cited in our brief so if these construction contracts don't have the key donors interstate commerce then i would be hard pressed to think of any case any construction contractor in the state of illinois that would implicate illinois gun for the hearing so there is a conflict between the federal law and state law enforcement really the conflict is resolved by the supremacy united states constitution the fact of arbitration act as a federal law is the supreme  file years all interstate businesses including construction companies have been able to rely iran national policy is the supreme law of the land so that your arbitration agreement would be enforceable anywhere they did business in the united states but there are tra builders asking this court you in this case is to recognize that the federal arbitration act remains the supreme law of the land and to force the arbitration agreements between the parties according to the green terms so again we respect a request that this court overturn void and against public policy if in fact this court determines that the f a a doesn't apply in the first inquiry is whether or not there is interstate commerce why it's has not established how there is a substantial change orders to the wise only met as illinois after asked what is registered in illinois with the illinois secretary of state license to do business in only the equipment and materials used for it right in the performance of the sub contractors work from vendors in illinois agreements and in fact the relationship between wives and write all of the activities took place in the one on the cases cited by weiss did not support in this instance interstate commerce that that statute itself is a is a general contractor have it's against public policy and under the f a a clearly states that the  the states are entitled to control arbitration clauses as long as it is that using the same grounds as exist that long or inequity for the revocation of any contract public policies in general contractor  illinois building and construction contract act would not be preempted by the f a a in addition just the express wire which of eight fifteen does not limit just arbitration provisions but it refers to any type of dispute selection in a contract that would require the case to be litigated arbitrated mediated in some other out of state venue so because it's not specifically directed just to arbitration i would submit that interstate commerce are fairly distinguishable they deal with instances where they were looking at the contract where there was a substantial connection between interstate activities under that specific contract triggers acts that will that would rise to the level of interstate commerce in this situation we have to show some kind of substantial impact and there simply isn't any as it relates ari bryant's contract with  even if even if your owners were not to accept the additional and horses that we had for instance with the the steel suppliers out of wisconsin which were all manufactured and shipped here in illinois that still wouldn't rise to a level substantial this standards for a fool for not communions is that there is a substantial interest in the form that selective appoint him and that that should not be disturbed except for we reasons in most instances the plaintiffs and mischel choice of form will prevail and in this instance if you look at the public and private factors they only take in favor of bright we clearly compiling the venue statute which party is a general  contractor provision i might add it's not targeted just to arbitration we also comply with under the only one you can explain out the foreclosure portion of this case that's directed to we would like to supplement under rule three twenty nine to clarify i think it's also important because it's in their reply brief and indicated that there were false and misleading statements sent and i think it's important that submit that the whole doctrine or not can mean it shouldn't have any bearing on this court's decision and furthermore i'd just like to point out that weiss isn't here today arguing the ad will come is not that i our rights signed them and there's also a substantial period of time between when our great sign the first contract when they signed second sub contract sol presumably they have copies of these southern cracks in their office for an extended period of this is for example initiation contracts so i think that this is just a of all fact that has no bearing on the court's decision in this case i have nothing for the things you