presented by both sides majority then tweezers that evidence apart and makes a decision about what the intent of the parties was we never had that competent evidence presented in this case what happened here only also don't know that there's any case law which says that one in one instance of something happening creates a course of feelings between the parties in this case the gentleman who filed the court in ruling on the motions of post trial motions really articulated all the evidence how the unit they went through the law they went through the facts of the case and with that memorandum of decision on the post from oceans really covers i think all the arguments that mr glasser has made for you today i know today that he has appreciated the subtle distinction between proving a condition precedent and proving the intention of the condition precedent it is the latter that we really are to decide the language was capable of being if it was intended as a condition precedent the language was sufficient so we're not really there to prove or prove the intention of the parties that's why we got into the evidence he asked the squirt to accept as a matter of fact that there is no evidence available and he keeps talking about you have to show mutual well we presented evidence before the court he presented none he asked to accept as a fact no evidence was available to him but  have to prove his case well age and tell him he has the contract and he used the contract and he asked the jury to determine simply on the basis of the language of the contract his position was the correct one and if it's ok for him to ask the jury to use the contract you know itself to render a decision and it's certainly fear that they use the contract to render a decision had first to him   secret intention well the secret implies a reason to not want to communicate if i had dinner last night and i don't mention what i had today that doesn't make it a secret maybe equally clear to both sides so that there is by the silence really is a manifestation of the senate those particular terms and so the fact that it's not specifically discussed every single thing people may read the  both sides read the agreement there are those issues for which they believe there may be differences of opinion and then there is there are not but there is no evidence here that this was some kind of secret intention you know none at all that's what this word means to me we think therefore infer that that was the intent of the parties no i think you know the intent of the parties the contract case people don't read the agreement the same way but something as i said if both parties read it feel no discussion is necessary then there is a sort of mutual is sent by silence in a contract because every single position is not it is not discussed out why because there is no language right there now i understand that in this case though we said it was him thinking it was and i don't recall seeing any testimony any evidence whatsoever that the the even only one instance but that would go to weight you know she said the other town official said he had reviewed the contract numerous times over twenty years and that was his understanding of the contract he refresh his recollection just when it was one instance only over the twenty year period and wasn't that what we're talking about two different things here we're talking about smith who was the town manager said i'm responsible for administrating this i've been a tom editor for many years these are how these things are administered that scores of feeling but i'm proof the defendant met the burden of proof and really those things that happened of saying that was my understanding at the time of the agreement i don't think you have to put on both sides i think it's incumbent on the the the  unexpressed interpretation satisfy that well if it's if it's unexpressed if that's their understanding and there's no testimony from the other side of me they have to put on something to say well no that's not the understanding i really understand it was not a lot of evidence in this case i have you know i'm fully aware of that that there's not a lot but it was really to wait rather to and then to admissibility at that stage were wrong now the jury was entitle to put whatever way even if it was just as someone suggested he smidgen of evidence it's more than double evidence and the jury determines that way and never little the snitching i thought was in reference to courses dealing and supposed one is it posts this last one in administering this contract post layoff now post lawsuit so that's one and the other was the other town other contracts look at this one this is how it was handled the subsequent perform after the contract is entered into is still horse appealing so yes the lay off another person short course here in italy how do you deal with it this is a collective bargaining agreement yes usually if if if it if the union thinks an employee is getting the shaft hundred collective bargaining agreement the union usually tells some