high plaintiff's motion to strike a green and summary judgment before trial on the stand should limitations when in the prior hold the court decision said summary judgment should not be granted and based on grounds as to which there was a chain issue effect in addition the trial were turned that summary judgment ruling into a ruling saying that he would not consider any evidence before june twenty three two thousand   this was a but i mean in reality wasn't it sent back for determination which of those two contracts the travel with the freight was part of the employment agreement was that was part of why it was reversed yes your honor but when it went back that was the position that the trial court was supposed to make that determination correct the traffic court was supposed to make a determination about whether to fact the facts and trial supported that the truth of the travel agreement was signed january twenty three i'm sorry the employment agreement was signed january twenty three ninety ninety five and the employment  because the tribe who was relying on that back to determine the intent intent of the parties has to z meaning of the provision in the employment agreement the trial court was saying because  was referred to as to their terminations privilege but wasn't their testimony as that although mr toole did handle the phrase in other issues it's on the testimony at trial is clear that the freight agreement continued until april thirtieth two thousand and six i mean the question is did when i worked at that previous decision is what degree meant summary judgment inherently has to be wrong because it so heavily in your opinion relied on the two contracts being send same day rather than one twenty three month or so that's just a bit that's part of your ideas in this link with that is that the trial work after rule on summary judgment says i'm not going to hear any evidence first say i'm not going to hear any evidence that occurred before june twenty three two thousand and one which was the june twenty third two thousand and one this is obviously incorrect it's a ruling on a competent see no evidence that was perfectly competent and relevant before trial and this is leading counsel on witness that ruling and have it you know the judge has indicated that he doesn't think that he's going to hear any evidence so we have that ruling against us at the beginning  e it was an incorrect ruling and prejudice is the prosecution of the trial there you go there's a conclusion again my question is how would you prejudice what evidence was precluded from coming in  that the cutoff date is june twenty three two thousand and one for trial america he did not rule on any of our arguments concerning that there was a new promise to pay  you just stick with us while you get your money and we you know just wait and did continue to wait he relied on that promise he relied also on the statement the secretary treasurer of the company that said here's a check it's not a profit sharing but bruce will take care of you on your profit shar and he continued to wait you continue to be employed you continue to get paid and all of those things together show a new promise to pay conditions salary ever change his  but he never got a cost of with never got cost of living increases that was included in the employment and there were no one of their own there were no other discussions that we might be considering at least in your client's my outside of the employment agreement they were only in the employment agreement i'm not sure exactly when your honour's keeping well if there were conversations about i'd like to raise your this or that your client consider those all to be under the employment agreement could apply to either the travel or it's a freight or perhaps both this quarter the first appeal only decided that there was a material issue of fact it did not enter any f made it he drafted the initial employment agreement he didn't talk about the freight agreement he only talked about the some strange agreement and he said to bruce according to the testimony at trial well i might do  this with groups a long time before this ever happened through the three years there was an issue about it but they only time to the kind of trial business trial trail travel thank you too much of a lawyer considering all the evidence because he discusses it and he makes his findings but it becomes not relevant if the cut off teams five years is essentially what he said well know about the building process of his statement that no one employment contract referred to both these agreements last credibility not only because he was a part of the bid but also because he initially draft the employment agreement that the plaintiff erit to afraid agreement you know it's true the plaintiffs version of the fence differs from other evidence in the record but that's exactly the role of the trial court to weigh the evidence determine the credibility of the witnesses and it's and said it makes no sense that if you think you're owed hundreds of thousands of dollars that you would continue working for this company that's a fact never was the actual cost to the company he did not profit there was a there there was a loss of two hundred thousand dollar loss  the freight or the travel agreement or both that's exactly what this trap where did after weighing the evidence and holding that the plaintiff's version of events was incredible if held at the travel agreement was referred for these bonuses based upon the an agreement because we we get different provisions i mean is this employment agreement divisible or is it one  dollars if it's based on the sunscreen contract i will get profits i will get you know profits by percentage if there's another contract it'll be paid this way is there anything about profits from that  case based on the breach of the agreement and i would just reiterate that all this was accepted their elevation of the coup or did not consider evidence before june twenty there are two thousand was directly contradicted by the record because for instance financial saw the writing on the wall as far as the tremendous outsourcing so and was he directly involved in the negotiations no but he knew about the process he had completed the testimony will show he had communications with people he knew what was being considered he knew that freight was being considered seniors that travels be considered the evidence will show that he was involved with it you know he wasn't sitting in the room when the news documents same level of specificity in means you know wage act claims as you do in a contract claim and i haven't ever seen the principle contrave proper in terms being used in a wheelchair case and i doubt that it would the revenue that they received from him in terms of his frame the frames revenue the seventy three thousand dollars a year that was included in their revenues on which the charity later profitability and his salary was included in their expenses so that was part of the that was all part of the deal together going on in this deal is determined to be otherwise because the language