regarding wagner's application the parties then agreed that it would be customary for midway between an appropriate service and a real estate developer that he would be paid based on a percentage of the total think st of all i do believe it was overbroad in the sense that it banned all kinds of compensation for for lobbying for picture men at that time it was just considered heinous to be compensated for those types arrange ments obviously over the past century or so that has substantially changed and i think that when new mexico and acted the lobbyist regulation act they took a stand on what new mexico's position wise with respect to legislative lobbying and they specifically chose to limit it to the state legislature and with respect to i mean how council does this case to seat on the basis statute or does  rule would we be required to affirm even if the district were erroneous lee relied on the strategy i really i don't think so because i don't think that the prior ruling compensation where the agent is one working customarily on mission as mr mccall has always done in his thirty years as real estate broker where there's nothing unusual about the transaction and we're not going to automatically hold that just because contingent nature of the it's so i think that there's been very clear expression and both this court throughout new mexico ports as well that the policy expressed in any kind of  limitations in that statute including limitations where the scope where this prohibition applies just as important as the prohibition itself in this case we really do have a situation where the state there is nothing and statute and regulation anywhere that would have alerted any of the parties in this case that the type of arrangement entered into was improper and i think that's important because if the only thing traditional about it is that he was assisting wagner in the ballot being a real estate property that was what he was originally hired to do is i or be arrangements was a separate agreement th his other consulting arrangements but he was primarily there because of his action actions and real estate development because of his experience in real estate development in the sense of securing industrial revenue bonds  for real estate project that is why his services in this case were retained but as far as being a traditional brokerage situation i don't think that's exactly what we have here  but i am going on what i was saying was that there's that essentially in this case there really hasn't any ever ever been any allegation of impropriety misuse by anybody hasn't been any allegation of attempting to use and influence i and if it used its prior ruling to preclude us from considering certain evidence i don't think the court is precluded from considering various types of evidence because it found that it was  percentages that wagner paid its their tax consultants and she flat out refused to consider that happens because she found that because it was based on a contingency fee if it was a boy it's a matter of public policy i still think the court could have used given the broad discretion she has for unjust enrichment claims could have used those as benchmarks to assign a value to mr service so not necessarily to answer your question i don't think that if you will against us on the breach of contract understanding the public here well let me let me ask you this let's just let's assume without deciding that the legislature has the power to declare what the public policy of new mexico is and let us further assume that the court had declared previously the public policy in a broader sense that could include this situation before us the question to you is by narrowing the scope of public policy to the statutory criteria that are present here under the kind of general principle of those general principles wouldn't that cut against you wouldn't the legislature have essentially repudiated the earlier doctrine of public policy th couldn't have a common law expense that action or expansively to the local government level and that's especially true because there  mexico and there's no allegation here that there was in any impropriety by county officials that that's not even involved in this case it just strikes me as a bit  it would have been an equitable claim the district judge did decide that as a factual matter that mr wagner and mr mccall did not ever reach an agreement on a contingency fee and so i want to focus  the existence of a reach of contract is a jury issue and so if we were to find that to reject your argument on public policy it would be a jury issue as opposed to a judge decision that's if you forgive me for asking a company question that's one of my problems and then the nd distinct problem is it seems to be mixing apples and oranges because you have a credibility determination that was made on the restitution issue and it just seems awfully counterintuitive i don't know how you how you mechanically do it to say that the summary judgment issue in which credibility is not on the table is moot because later with the benefit of testimony and credibility determinations we know what would've been the result after the price of everybody's  can't tented that you could look at what the parties actually agreed with regard to you know whether this was a fair price more or less for the services and said that  neck just briefly with respect to the size of the fee there has been that's been heavily disputed migrant things that would be a lot last we think it would be more so that's a disputed issue so i don't think we can rely on that but along those lines i think that just clarifies that there is no clear rule in new mexico about public policy about just the nature of the contingency being boy if you're going to and validate a contract which in mexico has a high paramount preference for freedom to we have plenty of regulation at the local level to govern the types of concerns that are outlined by the hazleton courts i believe we should just for to the legislature on on this issue and the fact that there was no