plans to come to work for them if you can see and read from the urgency of planets in our entire family based upon their they base their reliance upon this promise to provide the business to them for sale and don't recall i don't remember so the you know this electronic media situation to back this up which is a stroke which is destroyed when you when you if i'm trying to turn stay close to me if i'm trying to lawson from the jury i'm going to sit there and the specific terms that would have been in the e mails that you do not not have to prove their testimony but the testimony is i was going to go to a lawyer once we had specific terms i never went to a lawyer because whenever a specific purpose i'm talking more of a contract which throughout the time period credit for the time and the amount subsequent there too after two or three years now are they specifically the way you hire the wife to know for whom it is no doubt about it are there more specifics in the e mails i don't know prior to getting a javelin due he had no income no money he dad took the job at least did work for a year and received a full salary of seventy thousand dollars after he was terminated from when do with in a month he received another job for a it's nor damages on his part with respect to that promise he did in mine and that promise in terms of his coming here to accept that employment and staying there during that period of time i don't think he  there was five percent equity of the salary again counselor lid that that was never taken out of their salaries but that's even say it was their salaries were seventy thousand dollars five percent of this thirty five hundred over a year of let's say two years what is it ten thousand dollars mr libby testified the business was worth a couple million mystery goes testified that in her mind that's a key point she thought the business was worth a million dollars we still have nine hundred ninety thousand dollars can ascertain what their promise this and it clearly in the case law cited in again the terms that i talked about it would be impossible for a quarter for a jury to ascertain what was their process  what you can't just say oh i promise i'm going to sell you the business that undoubtedly is not nearly enough to constitute an idea that he was promised with respect to mr rice's statement concerning the an intentional employee there was no indication that he had a way for a family member that was supposed to come aboard there was no room there though those two incidents were so far not related to each other that the idea that ish you know the conspiracy of sheen is as you know on more and more responsibility one would presume or infer that because of the promise to sell for the business she knew that if she did that one she was learning a business and two there would be a reward at the end i think even prior to the agree this agreement and again that has nothing to do with any type of bush team which requires i e more than one thing they're completely interrelated and i would go on to say that this whole shima exception because remember this was a promise of a future intention rates it was very very similar to this case in the court how we're going to see if you had a shooting even if you had a promise for future intention it doesn't matter because you don't have a definite promise a statement of material fact and therefore the court rejected the fraud claim as well as the breach of oral contract claim that was submitted by the players as well putting that is a situation we have here we don't have a sheet and there's not even close enough evidence to meet that standard we don't even said that no matter what those e mails said you could take any line from the deposition you could take the response or it written written into writing to a verbatim interact or said what are the terms there was a paragraph or what these terms were there was nothing specific the players in the council had time to sit down write down what the terms of this agreement they couldn't come up with anything simply because there were no terms so there is no way below my position is the terms that were set forth in the deposition were the vague terms which maybe the five percent maybe in two or three years those very vague terms may or may not be in those e mails but presuming for purposes of this know passed the point of the spoliation instruction then it's we never got to the point of proving a trial what it would have been if i can prove damages i lose i'm the first one to admit that but we never got there while we had was his question i found out th