that there would be no liability why they should be construed against shaw simply by getting filled in that na presented no evidence and made this motion for him to reckon finding prior to presenting any evidence and at that point in time and mechanically the court although this is not part of the record mechanically the court said that they be drawn it has to be drawn in a manner that it would in essence twist logic or otherwise you know be abusive to the the inference a doesn't have to be drawn in such in such an stipulation that only two of its prying aphasia points and there you see they prove the existence of a contract and they also prove performance that was part of the stipulation that was entered into was to avoid hearing  of the contract or the performance since there is no dispute that they had in fact performed the question and there was no dispute that there was a breach the contract on the part of the client side of the contract because there's was no dispute between counsel and in the core however what there was was a dispute as to who the client was and to whether that client was in fact coming to roost in fuel company or whether that was in  that's their position that then that's their position and like i said that's that's a position that almost defies logic you go when you go when you go to lunch later this afternoon you maybe we'll go to mcdonald's i don't think necessarily that if you common parlance in their business that they utilize somebody walked away from to go she a should and prepared a written agreement that consisted of the professional service agreement the person who walked away from the negotiation and then again this is and i don't think you can if you have to draw an inference by against that occurring that's a reasonable inference to be drawn from the stipulation and from the document itself and it gets comes not done by mr cowdery and as a as a result mr crowley wasn't the one who with this now somehow mis representing the capacity that he was signing he represented that he was the present he wasn't fact the president of county materials and fuel company and as a result he was signing in his capacity he was signing as an agent on behalf of the entity that he represented and the moment he signed the as the agent of the corporation that he represented upon the arguments that were presented i mean those arguments are not part of this record but it doesn't fact come to that conclusion based upon the arguments that were presented it also comes to that conclusion presumably as part which is also part of the record although i can't tell you the question for he comes to that conclusion from the motion to dismiss the case an issue with that which was also part of the record so there was an affidavit that was filed as part of the motion to dismiss defendant an opportunity to present itself and rather than presenting the evidence that day and taking the time for the presentation of any evidence on behalf of the defendant the court took the corporate name and particularly when you breviary that name if you take out the statutorily mandated references to being a corporation or limited you think you've defeated the purpose of the business will ration a