it entered its dismissal order on this file i think clearly erred and its interpretation of a supreme court decision which was were it to their attention involving deal when i home repair remodeling act the supreme court case it is she was a mill or construction company in ercis mcginniss that the home repair remodeling act says is required to be there does the homeowner get the wait for the contractor to do everything and then walk away from having to pay and there was disagreement on that alternately the illinois supreme homeowner in this case is you want to oversimplify the contract if the hearing on the motion to dismiss it was a clear at some points in the contractor in this case that if an oral contract is good enough for the supreme court to pursue in breach of contract or point tomorrow is certainly a contract that maybe the home owner doesn't think is specific enough clarify was it conceded or was it not the those involved this is a contract sure so i don't have the record in front of me but i can represent to you the one of the i think both were certain but as to the issue of whether or not this is a contract i'm touching upon that a little the would be my position  incorporating the scope paperwork is on page one it doesn't have a number by it but i'd call a paragraph one of the contract it incorporates and then to let the contract in as a part of our sale price is the ensurance scope of what they're saying they're going to pay and the nature of the services that that is what we're going to do and it goes into detail if you   part of the issue and from my client's standpoint the irony of the defense being my knees made by the homeowner of bio lack of specificity part of the contrary again it was incorporated insurance documents and the contract requires in the first paragraph for the homeowner provide this various ensurance paperwork to cardinal catastrophe which my client i mean it's not in the record but i mean it wasn't on that's why a motion for a leave to see discovery was filed in my case to get those documents so i a in essence part of their defense to the case of lack of specificity of a contrary is because they themselves were breaching my contract to provide that supplemental document that would make the entirety of the contrary so they're reaching i mean it in a nutshell i suppose i would just argue the it is our position that if anything the homeowner in this case was frustrating  client the contractor from getting the insurance documentation and trying to perform war as he had a contract to do a homeowner should not be rewarded or allowed and i don't think the supreme court's case in female or construction company allows for in and bones what was done in this case of someone trying to use technical violations of a contract a ssuming there were violations of the contract for example i'm sure why do any work in sense of well addressing that point your honor  i'd like to address that sort of twofold on the one hand i don't think that's technically the inquiry on a two six one five motion is what's before the who are that beings and  work on a project with no but my point is the work was there who go you're quite right i have not asked him details of the extent of what was ordered and the like but he did go out he did meet with the homeowner he did spend time talking with them he was making efforts to get a supreme court case there was a lot of work there was nat would make that possible these ok but i mean it would be my client's position that the home repair remodeling it provides for my recollection is correct that three day  homeowner if they get cold feet someone did want to sign someone felt pressured whatever the legislature was thinking when they put that provision in the to protect the homeowner if someone didn't like something they gave a three day never actually got a  if this contract is somehow valid do tional purpose for the legislature even to pass the home repair act to protect consumers basically the home we're hearing remodelling act requires certain things to be in a contract or to cost so he wouldn't have to do it in then actually do the work and if he had done that if he had done the work then he had contacted the insurance company and came out and done the work or still question he'd be responsible for th contract of course to be an authorization even though language is contractual this is a case where you've got a contractor who's got a greater knowledge than the consumer who gives a consumer form that says authorization to things but he didn't do that he didn't do anything other than come out here in the act provides for for expenses if you do an ass reasonable cost of best spread by four that was never done here so i don't good you have your complaint handy church company hadn't been contacted that information was provided to the second contractor who then had my client sign a contract to perform the work that's when they that's when the os that's when the  because everything's happened this case nothing's happened the only thing that's happened if you got a contractor one liquidated damages i guess  this sort of poor contract would not be precluded by the provisions of the home repair act that's what was involved in my ok kate miller they did the work that's a distinguishing fact they do the work i made but again it goes back to my initial question sort of assuming there is a violation of the home repair remodeling would be under the consumer fraud or not to implode the contract again i don't know i mean if i'm just speculating and pontificating i don't i don't know what that those damages would be if they didn't pay a nickel towards my client what the damages would be but the supreme court apparently is saying  i just i mean if anything that would i believe taking an interpretation like that would be respectfully are you i don't think that's what the supreme court was getting and i mean one of the same token i think a miller construction company you had a case where  it was argued why the contractor that hey i was wrong here that i should be good because fans of thousands the supreme court essentially said well maybe if this didn't comply with the states you nevertheless we're going to let you try and get your money and i think that's the way of what it's the supreme court is trying and the legislature which is close or otherwise there are consequences if you don't comply with and in this case playing off the cardinal catastrophe is seeking liquidated damages for some fees for having to pursue what they think they were wrong dodo i would ask that the score reverse the circuit court's ruling and only in this case for further proceedings ok