the sale of a residential lot and used in the in different counties in south eastern north carolina unlike previous cases before this court the question of whether the law fell within the interstate land sales full people the plan it was presented with an opportunity at that point in time to walk away or to move forward in order to convince the plan of to move forward there were engineers who do work throughout southeast or carolina that this independent company and in fact contracts as for other all five salt group would conduct water surface and ground water testing and would confirm that fecal matter on the property at decreased to acceptable standards on the corner of member first two thousand and seven so that is the representation now that what next question is will what part of that was not well it turned out that it did not do the sampling on the problem nor did any other qualify consulting firm who actually ended up doing the consent the the sampling was a i think the way that the clerk group affidavit reads actually is the sister company collapse of the samples provided them to a lab lateralized the results this may be attacked by the lab analyzed the results and then passed on the results to lab a sister company that's not in the record that's not in there one way or the other did you ask it to be honest your honor during depositions and during discovery both in the written the iraq story responses  asked who was involved in the sampling in the testimony and their response was the core group period they did not disclose to us it was only through studying the core group report to the division of water quality that i move forward with a contract rather than wait for this issue be resolved at a later it was that it would be independent it would be the clark route or other qualified salt income i did ask the general manager during this seller shall be entitled to a refund or to the senate they can trade it in for another lot and so it's our intention that language suggests more of a salary to do if you want your i get your money back why do you go beyond but the record in this case we contend is clear right it doesn't that it doesn't it notwithstanding that lot doesn't it denby still have to act you consider the other documents manifest the intent of the parties as you say agreement to agree you go a step further to make sure because for example want to case like this my client for my client paid money for a while and there perhaps you can explain to me where that gets if we go beyond the four corners of the document then like how does that help you it's still you still have to come back to the fact that you're in forcing if this is what you're trying to enforce all this does is give you three options there but there's no there's nothing in the contract that says who picks that's why you look outside of the kind how does that help us decide who picks because the intentions of the party in the  would be able to select the option and get his money back no no ma'am i did not judge duck and i don't as a matter of fact i'd like to speak of corollary regarding his inverses walker intimately familiar with the case about here and did the big very clearly states the or at least the the sour and the buyer we all agree to one of the three options well that's not really correct because the third option doesn't have an in it although you it first and foremost before reaching the entire court must look at the language and whether the language is ambiguous or i baby was in this case it is unambiguous the plant the seller and the buyer will agree to one formal agreement and the court held that that expression desired was insufficient to constitute agreement locals it left open for future negotiation it left us and for a future decision what the outcome would be in this case would point out further that with respect to that particular point with respect we submit that there wasn't even a violation of first class i say that because the notice was mailed on october thirty first if you look at the language of the agreement itself it's one forty seven the record the agreement itself says that i refer you back to the hood probably reported in putting this in context the higher property report refers to a consultant or our consultant providing the report that was reviewed by and reported by the independent consult so there is no issue in this case you submit with regard to using the affiliated companies employee for collecting the degrade over time as all the evidence in this case reveals and so what was done was entirely unsurprising result was obtained there was entirely consistent with the previous results not settled or no mode agreed upon by which they may be settled and there is no agreement i mean it's pretty forceful on that and then gives the out for contemporaneously sign right and i believe it says also the intention of the intentions of b and a to c c capital ok says that it will shall be all lawful for a developer to use a scheme to defraud clearly fraud subsection capital b says to make use  untrue statement of material fact or a vicious statement tiriel fact necessary in order to make the surrounding statements accurate in light of what was said that is not for all that is straight from the securit first two thousand and seven did find that one monitoring well well federal service in ground water standards that's the allegation that was admitted in the answer so they didn't did that's what that that sent that was in the contract means acceptable groundwater standards means