rain on to her property and what was the butler property at the time the madison county inspector came and looked at the property and he said there was recently work done to th heard where it was you didn't have discretion to review it and decide as would if you were sitting in the field where this is completely different you are given the authority to do that  or in any case if there is not sufficient evidence to hold back decision there was no analysis of facts there was no analysis analysis of elements with regard to the disclosure on play when it appeared to be happening was that one of the court determin basically it's the whiskeys which says that the images can be limited if the buyer is a later defect so the reasoning is that the buyers knowledge of the facts is reflected in the purchase price and the buyer is given the benefit of the bargain on the front end with the purchase price rather than on the back end with damages so we get the benefit of his bargain but nothing more than that  cost it's a zero unknown cost next to septic system but there's more than one way to negotiate you don't have to necessarily take a number down and subtract the number in order to use the septic system as a negotiation will when i see it as they were trying to make their offer sound reasonable by listing things but not the done thing for them so the other deductions they can say oh well you know it was worth trying because we didn't negotiation tool because they thought they needed to cook up to the city not fix the septic tank itself and the trial court now that are not credible and again that's another they're admitting there that it is a negotiati amount of fees were actually incurred in that case not that they were reasonable what he was trying to do is they'd be attorneys from having to come on the stand and say i want to x amount of hours it was worth this amount of money that is all he was trying to do and i think the record means that extremely here you just read it i think it's before i have the transcript the next argument that they thing is that there was an inadequate percentage that simply doesn't say that that in that case there was that seventy percent of the ease requested were awarded because the interim spent seventy percent of his time on the consumer friday claim that was  a reduction in this case due to the fact that they did not prevail on the come along private plane first there is nothing in the record there's nothing in the opinion that i found indicating that there was a reduction in attorneys fees for unsuccessful claim be applied here i think was lost is that the fact that the court found there was a presentation that was made the representation turned out to be false that whenever they built that house they knew what they were getting into when she uses those exact words as far as during and as far as the flooding and this system on the property that has nothing to do with this septic system that defendants had at their home at that time it has nothing to do with that so i don't understand the diagram and what they're talking about is very very close now i have to curtis case that is systems but there was clearly some work done in those photos that he was talking about those are the work that was done by mr butler in may of two thousand i next was in council talks about