not final as to what was said there may have been other things that the parties could have been rooted in a written agreement if they agreed on them but the parties didn't agree on anything else and that's fine you're not bound by anything that was the drafts or anything that was in a written agreement that you didn't sign but why isn't it the case that the parties agreed on what they agreed on and said that was fine and we're going to try and write it up and you know maybe if you write up something and add something that will be added but there's nothing to say that this isn't the final thing there's nothing that says he still have open issues off of the well in the recycling of the material it is in the record himself from that oral forcible agreement not a straight judge not burn concluded that a valid oral agreement arose at the summit conference on february when two thousand and nineteen district judge george daniels reached the same conclusion judge put the oral agreement on the record and it was absolutely unmistakable and unequivocal we've quoted that at length in our brief the question here is whether it was clear error for the district court in light of the statements that were made on that record to conclude that the parties intended to be found not only to make back and losing the contest the words that were affirmation that is on the actual record that there would be a binding and forcible material terms i accept and you understand by accepting these terms you're entering into a binding and in forcible oral agreement yes i do so appellant likes to gloss over those very very plain statements in the record  but that's those are the statements that create the contract he's seeking to avoid as your honor judge let's just indicated i mean the parties did intend to moralize the agreement in writing we tried to do so but the boilerplate does maryland just standard agreement appellant so we never got there we never were able to and realize the agreement we don't have to have a written document the written the oral agreement made in open court remains in force of all the district court properly applied all of the winston factors  and all of the militate in favor of finding a forcible oral agreement appellant has pointed to the mention on the record the idea that merrill would consider providing a release that wasn't mentioned it was not a condition precedent to the formation of an oral agreement nothing on the record suggests that there would be no deal without that and certainly it was not clear error for a judge not  one just a six or eight months ago from the nd circuit affirming these principles against jericho group versus midtown development and i just want to address two while at least one other thing since since climate raised it for the st time in his reply brief in the conclusion of his reply brief climate argues that he should be provided interest should the settlement agreement be affirmed already in force an assembly would be affirmed but st of all that argument is waived because it was not made in his opening appellate brief he's never made that argument before secondly there's no basis to what interests here and he cited none rd narrow was ready and willing to pay the settlement two years ago it was apparent who caused the delay right thank you very much to both of you will reserve decision have a good day thank you so that completes the argument counterproductive we will take aka's the maple row on submission we are also a big motions