judge from making that assessment so the judge hall had the power to make that assessment correct she did have the power the bills for she had subject jurisdiction what you said she had the power she's got subject measure he has the power to make it if it's if she has it but she didn't have it because he was never a creditor under the stack is removed to your connecticut  price except that you have to be licensed under forty in the chip in the regulation and you are in the statute regulation no it's a of the reason the is is that it doesn't make an end anybody would be able to sue anybody who sells their car like a neighbor sell their car undercut the violations even though the person is not in the business of selling cars because they're not own there's no such thing in the state of connecticut as of defacto honor there's no statutory law she provided no authority he was functioning essentially the operator was he was working there dealer as opposed to a car salesman you need to be licensed under the state of connecticut under fourteen are used this is a used car deal this would need to be a licensed new or used car dealer but a a and this point was pertaining to a used sale of a used car so you would need a license under that to be deemed a car dealer as opposed to just being a salesman that he was a salesman working for single decision now regarding the specific incident info as my mentor potations because i had no notice of this claim as we had the only the only thing in their pleading was the facebook post the brand of smith as a basis of their  last minute that we had made a good agreement opposing counsel and i that the only contested issues in the case in our joint trial memo which is which is in the joint appe because i had no notice under federal civil procedure not that it was being offered if there was she never said it was being offered present advertizement the play did she just said she thought she said in fact she testified a the law is it is the it's for the couple violation per se it has to be the solicited advertisement which is and she stipulated to the trial and in the pleadings the facebook page of brandon smith solicited is is within that purview of that information and that well i guess you could make an argument that once you're looking at the windshield you're already on the lot and celeb you're already a customer who does it also true that once customers are on the l she she came in through the facebook page of brendan smith about this and she asserted that objective standard right we want to know whether the writing on the windshield meet this definition whether it's any kind of communication and it's communicating something to her to make sure she buys the car that the price is being mitigated to her and the price that i don't know that she would expect to see that because she and her in he exhibit she presented the facebook page of brendan smith as the basis of her exhibit that this is what she came in on so we had no notice and think that she would come in and anything else that's what they told us it would help  by mr weiner that he entered into an arrangement with patriot i know that he was the one who was the operating the dealership under patriot out his name that he's the one who made the investment he's the one who took the risk when he did the work honor i think what it really is is it's a way to circumvent the requirements that people operating a dealership have the wrong license if somebody say ok i trust you you take care of it i trust you take care of my business but in fact there complaint that he was operating it so there's substantial evidence supporting judge charles claim that he was acting as a de facto ownership i'd like to spend a little bit of time addressing the argument that because it was a license is a dealership  an exception if you're just in gauging and leasing you're selling and then at the very end it says such person shall be qualified to conduct such business in accordance with the requirements of section fourteen dash fifty two a and widely held belief held law i don't think so and the reason why is because what we're looking at here is the definition of section of the motor vehicle code and the definition in the regulation is something different the regulation in the regulation incorporates the statutory definition and it says that it includes people who are licensed under this it's  exclusive and i think it would be a rather bizarre result that people who are operating dealerships without a license are to be licensed either you are or you should have should be yes whether or not you violate the policy where the penumbra of a policy inactive by the state in and the department of consumer protection issued a very clear policy that people in the business of selling cars are going  finding under one of those regulations you  well i mean i think the fifteen applies to this when you have a testimony that is offered that not supported by the pleadings then if there is an objection raised and at that point judge hall would have the opportunity well st i think that st of all there was testimony about an advertisement was on the vehicle and when she was writing very clearly does constitute an advertisement and yes of course it's understandable for an objection is restrained way but the dollars and sold for above that price same question and she she just answered it but she never said it was an advertisement and there were we would have needed tealeaves to know that that was the new claim after all this time the facebook post the brendan smith if you had realized we never had any notice under the federal rules about was a claim and under the federal rules you need implied consent when the opposing party they have to have noticed you can't just come up with this new theme in theory middle trial we had a trial i would have to know that white i thought it was background material i was sorry i thought it was just background information i didn't know it was a new new claim because she didn't say it was an advertisement she had testified just prior to that your honor that the advertisement she came up the she didn't say with an advertisement by weiner they never proved that it was an advertisement by weiner so they never said it was an advertisement she said she saw a marker on a window there is a case it's a superior court case provencio versus crabtree and the court held that they didn't file the defendant didn't violate it because it was the car van you factor not the dealership responsible for creating the advertisement and issue that's an issue whether or not the marker was placed by weiner on that when shield if that's was going to be the advertisement thank you very much thank you