works but isn't the purpose of the formalities of certified mail and all that stuff the purpose is to make it clear whether notice was provided says the reason to have those formalities rather than just saying no to this is so you don't get into evidence three disputes about whether there was in fact notice certified mail is all you can just attach to you know submit to the court the certified mail right when we did the pretrial inserts that the fence was inserted all right but there was a question i mean as we've seen those facts the question as i see it is whether we can override the clear statutory language saying you need certified mail notice we that's a theory gas and i know you say cases saying from lower courts that that's not necessary can you point to any louisiana supreme court cases that would say we look to the underlying purpose and even when it's in odds  those louisiana court cases which you know if it's by regular mail not certified mail it doesn't matter as long as there is actual numbers and the reason that i tell you that one of those cases sent to the actual party here there's another two was sent to the lawyer th two years after we filed the suit we had filed suit they participated in the suit they they acknowledge the claims in the suit and then at that point we didn't send them a certified does not say that there are real cases that  and not his attorney but notice was provided through these various the suit the e mail all before that forty five day period there's also the evidence in the record that they bond that their position is that it doesn't matter that we knew about the plan actually their position is that it's not their burden to demonstrate that they did have actual news and we disagree with that because that's their burden to prove that they didn't have an actual notice if this court agrees that actual news is report now to make sure i'm following that if if the statute provides for certified mail and whatever else you provide in order to have a definite matter of proof whenever this comes up or where the nose was given sitting it and all of their pleading so far to avoid saying whether they did actually receive notice of this claim before he filed suit they have said they don't concede it but that's not the same as disputing in your eyes the case is it said that the burden goes to the party proving the actual notice when the other party disputes not going to tell this court that the statute doesn't say what the statute said i'll concede that but the interpretation of that statute but all the  would have looked at it and not looked at that certified mail requirement as the key thing it's whether or not they had actual notice of the cleanup step by that forty five day their expiration of that forty five day so that's the point that the courts of appeal have all addressed here are counsel thank you you'll have time for rebuttal or you'll have time for please please the court just into us for the at billy's the louisiana legislature has been admirably clear about what is required if you are a subcontractor and you want to bring suit against a general contractor in a case where there's no priv of contract in those parts twenty two forty seven lays it out very specifically and very explicit and the louisiana supreme court and almost all of the leads in appellate courts have held that because that statute the louisiana public works sextet shoot is in derogation of the common right of contract that it has to be construed strictly against the claimant it's undisputed in this case that eighty four lumber did not comply with the statute and so on that basis alone this court could affirm the district court's opinion but also the maid said i want both sides know the facts of this case are clear that it wasn't certified mail the statute says recess so we're dealing with is there if there are other cases that say again they may not be the cases we want to follow which i certainly think if your position but are the cases just say if the males not certified but it is received and that is proven  contractor agreed yes i've received notice so you seem to be i mean i don't want to cut to the end game too fast are you saying that show long as it's undisputed in the case that notices received twenty to forty seven is sort of a non issue you not there are some outlier cases like that i mean what is required when you say outlier does seem most of the cases that have addressed specifically this mailing requirement seem to go their way which ones would you say go your way the focus particularly on the mailing issue i believe there's a case for state schools courts i understand you're saying ok when they said regular males ok even if it's not certified and you're saying this is further from what the statute i would seems to be the problem is once they say we're going to excuse the certified requirement they are  outside this plain language of the statute that and then it seems to be your standard is well what what degree of departure from the statute is required but there you are you are seems to me once you get away from the plane wing when you're in a world of did they that you that as a hierarchy and you start only after not case law but you start with statutes in the constitution and the holy bible or whatever else comes above that but you don't get to case law until after all that  nonetheless there are always in a judges who are not doing that now only twenty to forty seven i'm sure you don't want to certify this you just want to win but in this is a pretty good candidate for  then it takes a liability itself you can imagine how often that happens not often at all so the statute provides an opportunity for any interested party not even parties to the suit but even subs to sub sewer look and to get paid at some point to put up a bond and that permits the public entity to pay the undisputed amounts in the case that bond does not create a new clause of action and when you look at section twenty two forty two  there's absolutely no support in that section in that statutory provision that there's a new cause of action here a more a new claim courts have looked at the louisiana private works act which has a substantively identical  release bond provision and have said that it doesn't enlarge louisiana supreme court has said if it doesn't create a new name or a new cause of action it just opens up the funding so that it can flow through to subcontractors so there's no new claim that's created there no new cause of action the right to sue is still predicated on complying with twenty two forty seven which wasn't done here if the panel has no more questions thank your honour's burst on the statutory ball and claim and the cases them so the interstate schools case did not deal with twenty to forty seven year state schools case dealt with twenty two forty two of which was a statute and still is a statute that concerns material suppliers and what they need to provide in order they didn't meet that time in this aspect now the reason i mention that is because in the game case that we've cited says it was a different circuits they'd have to follow it but they also said that that or state schools case didn't make it didn't follow the requirements of the public works act which is to protect those who are providing materials in the project now moving to the release bond claims the release bond here there are two avenues under the public works act one is a statutory bond that the general contractor provides at the beginning of the project the second is a privilege on the owner's phones  the owners withholding from that contract twenty two forty seven deals with the claim on the statutory bond that's provided in the beginning of the project if the owner releases retain its to the contract before getting released bond from the contractor to secure that privilege on those funds the owner can be personally liable the release bond secures the privilege on the owner's unexpended fun it's not bonding off a bond claim it secures that separate privileged the cases under the private works act are completely distinguishable because under the private work sacked the owner you have a claim against the owner and a claim against the contractor the claim against the owner is secured by approval on the owner's property and order to secure and in force that claim you have to file suit within the owner within a certain amount of time if the contractor bonds off or the owner bonds off that claim that privilege then that bond is in place so that under clinton well if you don't and that the case that they cite they didn't file the suit in time that they would have had to go against the owner therefore the court said well the bond is only as good as a claim against you know that's not here because this statute is not related to the claim against the release in other words it's not the statute doesn't relate to the claim against the owner and therefore the release upon which replaces the claim against the statute doesn't relate to the release bond either so even if and we contend that the court was wrong in the motion for summ judgment that ruling has nothing to do with the release bond claim because twenty two forty seven does not require any notices in order to recover on that release but because it doesn't require any is in order to recover against