agreement that is an issue in this case and the general issue for the trial court was whether the option was a forcible or whether a design forceful for lack of consideration and our position the trout or was that the action dated september twenty one or six hundred twenty two rather nine hundred ninety nine is unenforceable for lack of consideration based upon the rule against pass consideration and the reason that the argument is cast that way is because supported by consideration the only act of the golden triangle whitetails who was the party from whom my client purchased the property their only act as the as the facts are white water was the execution of the september e our position based upon hilmer precedent is that it can't have been conveyed in the past that i can't enter into an agreement with you and say remember that that was in the name of the corporation in the office or one paid for or performance of that contract the facts and circumstances suggest that he was acting as corporate capacity there are no such backs in the current matter we have an individual who entered into a contract and has the option to purchase on that he did he did and that would be we wouldn't be here today if the if the property if that contracted been completed and we're not here on the july twenty fourth contract with the september twenty second trial the sellers didn't convey the property to advocate and so that contract incidentally that any of the parties performance acknowledged that and that  if the parties thought that there was any continuing application of that july twenty fourth agreement there would have been a september twenty second agreement which they granted another option from a different entity which is the golden triangle whitetails option september twenty second somehow those suggested the i pad like was acting in this capacity on behalf of both trying to whitetail when he requested and when they when they close the the agreement on september twenty first those facts were alleged and we don't think that there present one triangle didn't make any requests to have a property conveyed to them so there is no request of the promise or the second is a feel less consideration and this is an interesting exception to the alleged consideration was of a quote beneficial nature which placed a promise order a moral duty or obligation so as to consideration for the promise will be implied up and if you just read that on its face without further inquiry it looks as though that reads the requirement consideration out out of any country because i think most folks would say that if you make a promise to someone you have a moral obligation to please them but above all requires that that promise be supported by is factually distinct from that situation but the case goes on to say that to clarify this exception that all circumstances must be of such a nature as to presuppose a request for the benefit and there are no circumstances in this case that would would leave the courtroom presuppose that golden triangle did anything to request the benefit other than the september twenty second agreement where and that was after the benefit had been had been conferred so what about parties executed a second agreement not with my pathway but with the golden triangle and there they were the plaintiffs are obligated to present perfect trial would prove that the trout were that they've met all the elements of a contract and consideration is one of them in under the requirements of the law the rule pass consideration requires finding that because a consideration was conveyed in the past the will says that our position is simply applying the law to walk consideration case i think for the parties and i hope it is for the record but our position is not that there is no difference between one day and week or month very year but that in the eyes of all was it stated we will pass consideration was not made  that he made a representations to the claims about his this capacity or that there was any in writing that said he was entering into this agreement his capacity as president and that's a crucial factual the sanction and our judgment because of the otherwise at the very least there there may be facts out there that if a court thinks that maybe one of the exceptions of wise there were no facts alleged or contained in the record to support that the finding of listening to mr wright's basis of his i think the principal argument in that it was lack consideration with respect to the action the biggest difference between opposing counsel argument and our mr right call the purchase agreement irrelevant the purchase agreement is very well it's will sell this farm at this price on the condition that you really to give me an option to purchase it back in the future that was the solve those problems the promise of the other side the buyers  whether individually or in the past years as president for his company his promise at the time was yes i will give you an option if you sell the property the farm at this illinois we represent a lot of world clients and we were involved a lot of late transactions this is very typical scenario we saw a lot of farmland for clients by way of auction at the auction the buyer property right after if you auction you will come forward inside the purchase agreement and they are too late or some typewriting closing that buyer will call us and say hey you know i have a company and might excuse me most of the facts are reflected in the in the two principal agreements namely the purchase agreement and the the graves of the option to purchase the purchase agreement th that was part of the consideration that was whitetails consideration for the the parking for exchange transaction what he'll never cite anything made by mr right and his client that a purchase agreement was immaterial you can still look at the you could still look at the option to cremate and there was consideration option and really when you think about it you can't create something that you don't have a right to grant you can't read an interest in real estate you don't have yet so it makes sense to me that the big grant of the option occurred shortly after the sale the way if you go back to the purchase of me and i believe the purchase agreement is in the record under  of the use of the material in the in the order that this this this last time was a material but there's really no significance i think with the court using that word material i think what the court was trying to express in his opinion was that there was sufficient consideration ok with this pardon for a strange you have to answer any questions we have and if you think we fact that you're alleging a lack of consideration that's an exception to the rule of three contract you list there's no consideration which is for the the purpose of the rule for lack consideration is that rule assumes that there was an agreement that someone someone did agree and made a promise but it says that if a consideration for that promise was conveyed in the past but despite that agreement it's because of lack of consideration and so that's what we're saying in this case additionally to address a couple things that the mr staff addressed the september twenty seconds recitation of consideration in the surrounding circumstances that support a conclusion that this is an act of a corporation we have three parties emcees should have one and go trying to whitetail two separate contracts to those parties that are in the first