held in this particular case what happened was a real estate developer b h p got together with or or through the funding that's what they do they develop projects  submitted that was with the declaration that letterman had says pacifically look this is subject to a future a great sign by both parties that it was not in this particular letter well your honor the the key i think is the june twenty seventh two thousand letter the c days prove to be h p and it is transitions and provided to the city because i understand that's what the packet says and there are lots of different potential conditions on board approval one of the conditions on what approval in the packet is that the property will be sold that obviously in the future if you look at the board approval itself every single we can but i think the jury i think the six members of the jury look at this and say no but a star standard convention i don't believe you mr carson i don't believe that you signed that senate your lawyers noted large international law firm certainly and one of the arguments of your points is that you don't have to sign they propose it to you you sign a and then they accept it and that's not the law that is a long run or if they do something that is different that shows show up and i start moanin are there's an agreement what have they done they haven't done anything different they're still hiring me what i have to do and go on other than just propose something that you accept that to communicate they have to communicate that they you know what aspect  you propose to the court to get in order to resolve what you see as the tribal issue a fact that ford would instruct the jury that they are to value it the circumstances that were involved in this transaction and whether or not it was a meeting of the mind and a contract and if that contract was entered into at what date with that in and and then secondarily i believe that in relation to their second argument as to the larger partnership agreement they would be instructed as to whether or not they found it that agreement had been entered into as to whether or not consent had been formed and transmitted to  risks that are involved in these kind of transactions and they negotiated and prepared to detail contracts that located those who have six among them that contract unambiguous lee gave oryx the sole discretion binding commitment decline we were not a party to the agreement that required that that was something that the h p was required to produce and to accommodate them we gave them this letter and the letter  contract they gave or it's their right to refuse to go ahead if it was not satisfied with environmental due diligence also gave b h p the right to withdraw from the joint venture they had the same right to terminate the contract under section two point five and in fact the contract is very clear if blacks had not waited and satisfied all conditions by september thirtieth ph we could walk away at no time did they come and say copy sign it and return it and we will sign it and they send it back and we don't say anything that's accepted in fact the record shows that was a prior draft that had been we sent them a surprise draft and they signed it and sent it back and we said no no no don't sign that one this is a draft with still have open issues on our side when they try to sign a prior agreements we said no they sign this when they give it back to  i think that is the law and certainly once we retain it under those circumstances and don't say anything and don't object and don't say hold on we still want to think about this a little more that's clearly a communication  forward to close because that is exactly what was intended to do until the environmental issue came up and when the environmental issue came up we attempted to resolve that each side got environmental another on that it's at that point that works realized the chance that this impacts the groundwater may be small but if that chance comes through the liability would be ruin liability could be tens hundreds of millions of dollars if this site were involved with the pollution of the groundwater and that's why the contract explicitly gave oryx the right to back out of the contract and refused to close it was not satisfied with the environmental due diligence much your response to their argument that to me personally you didn't follow the steps required to terminate presented to the environmental outcries there was no doubt that the document that we sent them that says we're not going forward with parts of the environmental that there was no other basis no one is saying that there was an it wanted to buy he explained have the right if we said we're not going forward to terminate the agreement and say we're going to bring in someone else they didn't support the thirtieth deadline came and went and both sides try to work it out because it is very clear it was never communicated to us and what their intention was essentially was that we didn't notice which is why we originally had a product line which is not before this court but they basically were sitting there and waiting and sandbagging here's the other draft but they don't tell us anything on the final they don't give us a site plan they don't give us a budget they don't sign it they don't send it back they don't even give us a phone call well a letter to say this partnership is in effect and that