isn't forcible by rescue now the again the central question of course is whether it's in forcible without risk cam's decision a signature at the outset i think we need to look at the court's opinion the court appears to me to apply a presumption that that agreement is  in forcible and the reason that is important is because that reflects on the burden of proof if that's been the burden of the other party to get it if there's a valid arbitration agreed yes  either at the outset and of course as we know you know once the court finds and is correct in finding that there is a valid or creation agreement then you know that whether issues are to be included in that arbitration there there is a presumption that the issues all the issues may be arbitrated now i believe that the texas law of course applies in federal courts as decide what is a valid agreement now there are several there been several cases that i think were important in there in my briefs and i'm not going to get any great deal detail on them but there are several certain circumstances that cases show that the party the intent of the parties is what matters is are a valid agreement without the signature of both parties texas cases same to has a provision that it can only be modified in writing that is persuasive to show that the parties intended that both parties sign it and the third element i think that is even more important is here is that the agreement has a provision that specifically states how the parties assent to this agreement by signing this agreement the parties give up their right to sue each other i believe that should be dispositive it shows any other method of syncing to agreement to arbitrate apparent on the face of the contract person works under certain agreements and employers that we could be at will anyway they're given notice that by coming to work in no uncertain terms if they come to work they are agreeing to this new about her continuing to work or going to work for it is not specifically say that halliburton principle applied to the district court did discuss the fact that she showed up for work yes she wanted to be banned or that she intended to be bound by the fact that she showed up for work why does that not indicate that she was found that she went to us texas law you're allowed to set the conditions of assent and agreement on any kind of contract and they did here they said they way you would be on this contract is by signing the agreement not by showing up to work there is nothing in this agreement they said well if you show up for work despite not signing it despite us not signing it you're agreeing to this terms that agree that division we have that agreement we have in that subject agreement did not have any language that effect so something like that to think of anything what's her kid was her actual showing up and being employed in any way and limited by whether or not she had signed the agreement i don't believe it is the just normal tr what i look at is in the first paragraph about midway down it says in consideration of these many benefits and it goes on and as one of those it says in consideration in the continuation of the employment relationship the parties here to mutually agree that this document so govern the resolution of all claims and disputes between them and then it says by finding the agreement the parties are giving up in a right they have to sue each other that is that is where the arbitration provision is and it says denying the antecedent but the conclusion doesn't follow because the parties can agree to arbitrate in other ways how do we know that because the contract is what specifies the way in which the parties express their agreement if the contract said by sunday this agreement or showing up for work and accepting a paycheck or doing three jumping jacks or if it's at all that then that would manifest other way and how do we know that other ways were contemplated and manifest by the parties agreement if it's not in the treatment itself but i think it is in the agreement because it says that in the continuation of the employment relationship the parties are green to arbitrate disputes between themselves so by continuing to show up to work she is agreeing relationship the parties mutually agree that this document shall govern the resolution of all claims and disputes between them so by continuing the employment relationship that's how it's manifesting its assent to this agreement that's the alternative way to do it the fact that they didn't sign it means that that that their signature can't be used to show that they agreed but the continuation of the employment relationship is the way that they did this and that and that's how liberating because in haliburton under texas law to form a contract all the employer has to do is notify the employee that it's changing the terms and conditions of employment here that's what risk him did it rolled out the arbitration agreement and said from here on out we're going to arbitrate disputes between each other and how burton says as long as the employee shows up to work the next day with notice of what do you say to that that halliburton is really different well in terms of the new hire and i think that's a distinction without a difference because even if it's a new hire what they're saying is when you start your employment these are the rules are going to follow and in this case it was the  agreement just by continuing to hire and i mean i guess the problem with that argument is they are the ones who presented the dispute resolution agree with him that she didn't come in and say i'm going to work here we can agree to arbitrate they said if you want to work here you got to get arbitrate so now you're saying that they are there continued employment of her recent evidence that they evidence that they're the ones who one of the agreement they presented the agreement so their intent was to arbitrate all dispute they presented the arbitration agreement and then she agreed to it so arguably that ought to be the end of the discussion they're the ones who wanted it and then she signed it so she agreed to what they wanted we have a deal so and that's how i see it is to say because the parties have to show that the parties can agree that we need a signature before the contract to become effective and it's understated that under the essay signatures are not required in order to enforce the arbitration they chose the method they didn't have to choose this method but they chose this method and they may not have intended to do it maybe they just forgot but just forgetting makes it not not valid if the signature is required and they are the ones who chose the method that required a signature and judge not to belabor the point but i just disagree that they intended to have the signature in order for it to be enforceable that what do you say with this by signing the agreement the parties are giving up any right to have a jury trial what i'm saying that is if they did sign it that's one way of manifest in this sense but the other way is if they continue to employ her and she showed up to work after they rolled it out that that constitutes their acceptance of the agreement do you agree that it's your burden to show that there was the intent to arbitrate that you burden somehow in his analysis i do not believe that he did i think we have the burden and the district court's opinion shows that we in fact have the burden to show that there was a contract i think once there was a contract then he took that step saying that there's a liberal policy and that there isn't a contract that's that's begging the question now i'm saying in the second part of his opinion once you establish there was a contract that's when he did apply that but at the initial stage of establishing there was a concept i do not believe that he put the burden on mr huckabee to show that there was not a contr judge i would point out that the district court in fact found that the parties agreed that the continued employment constitutes acceptance by both the plaintiff and the defendant so the fact the district court i think was using the same analysis that by showing up for work the next day she agreed that that was that she was going to agree to arbitrate disputes and also point out that since this is governed by texas law to show that signatures are a condition precedent to enforcing the agreement the texas courts have held that in order to show that intent it has to be clearly and explicitly outlined in the agreement and back to your point it's all right i'm going to keep trying because i got ten minutes to do it  i don't know the but since i haven't raised this point it has to be clear the texas court of appeal stated in first labor says lawyer it's got to be clear and explicit that they intended for signatures to be a condition they greet but to say if you don't sign you don't agree doesn't follow me just does not because it's like saying if you have the flu you're sick to say i don't have the flu therefore i'm not sick we know that's not true it doesn't logically follow because you can be sick some other way right there's other conditions that you can have but they should be manifest in the contract and it does it's as the in consideration of the continuation of the employment relationship and i'm not  that's the argument that it is judge or that we're that we're sticking with and i would point out also that in that paragraph of by signing this agreement the parties are giving up i would point out that that paragraph appears directed to the employee it starts off saying the employee acknowledge that she's reviewed the agreement this is a legal document and any question should be discussed with legal counsel to employees choice and then the very next sentence after that is by signing this agreement so it's more directed towards the employee as is the whole agreement as you can tell from the first would your argument be we didn't sign it around i'm not sure we could make that argument if we didn't say if i'm trying to get out of iraq you're going to put this thing in the drawer unsign we kept it in the personnel file and we drafted it all that all those things which show especially the fact that it says in continuation you would lose correct to the perry way that you have you kept your options open so to speak shows that there wasn't an agreement can you just wish the bundle case place well the bun's ok so it is different because that agreement did not have any however in type language in it saying that in the continuation or by bundle that was my first one the second one is that that was a mandamus proceeding and so it was the court of appeals isn't looking at it to know what they were looking at was whether the district court abused its discretion in ruling as it did and what the court of appeals said in the mandamus proceeding was that there was  conflicting evidence as to whether or not there was an agreement to arbitrate the court said the district court was within its discretion to find that there was not an agreement to arbitrate which suggests to me i mean obviously i can't speak for the court but it suggests to me that had the district court found the other way that the court of appeals could have said that the district court was also within its discretion and here on the flipside the district court did find there was sufficient evidence of an agreement to arbitrate but those are the the two distinctions to to bundle you and i would also ask the court that in first light versus lawyer that one had even i think more compelling language that a signature was required because of first light versus lawyer they had however a language sa continuing to in the employ you've accepted but it also said immediately after that that the employee must sign an acknowledgment agreeing to arbitration and agree to the provisions so they must sign i mean to me that's more evidence that a signature said well we're going to harmonize that by saying that my signed because the employee did not sign in that case they said we're going to harmonize it by saying that signing it was just one alternative method of accepting arbitration and the other was continuing the employment relationship that agreement explicitly said continuing employment constitutes acceptance which this agreement doesn't say and i disagree for all the reasons i stated before judge but yes that is correct a better agreement in boyd did hella burton the employee excepted the agreement by showing up for work after the changes if you look at our agreement that is not what it says it's a recitation of consideration both parties to the binding arbitration provisions the continuation of employment relationship and other consideration it's a recitation of consideration is absolutely not a means of acceptance required to both parties sign they may not like it i may have forgot about it but they didn't sign we believe it does matter a lot but at least they didn't prove their case as a matter of