move to the six case roster says i'm sorry yet ross motor sport indicative of the general confusion that exists out there of which is kind of not fair to expect regular people from the streets to understand the the record in this case  contains statements from people in the industry who can't agree on such basic things as was at the crate was extend the finance men the ger of the dealership was in five second fire that the credit was not approved and then it was approved was conditions i don't know what it means but those seem to be contradictory statements the defendant's lawyer said the credit was not approved the way it was structured i don't know what it means either and then further shri said that the lawyer said that the discipline disapproval didn't denial came from a finance company which of course is another issue that all this comes up in those cases because in this particular case the retail installment contract the finance contract involved in the transaction identified the defendant the dealer ex mother contract so the theory that we brought before you is that when things of that nature happen the disclosure they really don't mean anything i was i was interested to hear the previous case which was just started before you and defense counsel cite at the holds a behind his back and and thinking well if i don't i can win the unilateral right to effect the silent or not if i don't get enough money i might not i might try to change the deal and get my money in fact we have in the record exactly that because after everything was said and done and mr office came to the dealership the final time thinking that he's getting his money the finance minister said well never mind we can still sell your car bring more money gather cosigner it's a record in those in those instances that kind of deal but of course in the statute provides an easy way out of that all they need to do is to designate the two  disclosures estimates this way the buyer doesn't think they have the final deal they say there is no shaking of hands they don't take the car showing it to their relatives and then paving at the bring the back they will be able to shop the terms the court counsel many of his children and i represent the defendant next motor sport i'm going to go little off script here because i want to follow up with a couple things counsels that plane to place a little fast and loose with the she says the experience says mechanical problems so within a week within a few days he calls next matters we're back and says i'm having problems and they say bring the current and he says ok but they can't figure out a time when you can bring  current so he decides in a week i want to return the car i don't want it anymore and even though they didn't have to they said fine it's been a week bring the car back and he says i just want my money back this is awesome i get my downpayment back you get your car back so the day is set he comes that he goes to the office he says i want my money the owner says ok but i got to see the car and he goes why i didn't bring the car x motor sport did not cancel the steel because it couldn't make an assignment or because financing didn't go through the steel cancelled because the plaintiff to run his carny more whether it was buyer's remorse or mechanical problems i have no idea he says it was mechanical problems ok fine they agreed to return it he didn't bring the car back so then they're like words are we want a car and he says i'm bringing your car and they  know this stuff comes up about financing and nothing was ever fleshed out so no one knows what any of it means but what i do know is that before one word about financing comes up the deal is done he ultimately gets back th giving him his money back he brings the car back that's the end of that and then we get the lawsuit and so here i am trying to asking this court to affirm the district court's in true summary judgment on the grounds that the contract documents did not violate the law when we have the plaintiff admitting that they're all accurate but he comes up with this argument that ok they're actually right that they're not really meaningful so therefore t was violated and why aren't they meaningful because there's a condition subsequent in the contract which allows you to cancel it which we never exercised but that's the argument the contract documents say you can cancel this mr buyer at any time if we agree and that's exactly what happened so plaintiff framed the issue in this  appeal and it's in his brief there's one issue and that issue was whether a yo yo sa the disclosures mandated by till it become meaningless so there was no yoyo sale there was a spot to live or to the extent that he took the car that day but as this court has discussed a spot delivery involves a trade and the buyer takes the new car home and he becomes attached to it and then the dealer calls him and says the financing didn't go through we want our car back and he says but i love my car and they say bring the car back and he doesn't bring the car back and they go repossessed it that is a spot to live or if that is not what happened here but even in that situation she had a casket this court held but that does not plaintiff who has been very creative with an argument and unfortunately the facts just do not support the argument and say that you know not only are the facts don't support his case but the law doesn't either we have a case directly on point jenna koski and the district court felt bound by it there's no reason to depart from janet how ski if you have accurate disclosure they're accurate it doesn't matter if there's a condition subsequent in a contract that the plaintiff read and signed and so with that i would ask that this court affirm the injury summary judgment in favor of client counsel contract well this comes before you in the summary judgment sort of standard virginia on the issue of material fact not sole we have a statement in the record the document forty two from the lawyer says a context that this is worse than the actual misrepresentation because they they feign compliance that they don't mean to adventure they didn't intend to violate we need a meaningful meaningful disclosure of two terms and that's what we're asking th to address thank you