there was already five million dollars on the books that the company owed to bear and so this provision network that you're looking at and the sentence and paragraph one of the guarantee refers to the fact that the guarantee is only going to apply to this and if anything else is loan for whatever but at the time the snow was done there was already a relationship between them a prior relationship between who in the company and the bank which i understand and in fact is if you know and i think in the end i think that the dish to court recognized this this item and this this and this issue came up on the motion to dismiss and then one when the when the district court noticed us that he he when he went to the variable rate provision so i think that even a court additional court recognized there are kinds of at a minimum the disputed issues of material fact on how to interpret this particularly in  no please the court my name is david clarke and on here on behalf of the apple league the guarantee that my client signed more than twenty eight years ago was a simple contract under the law of the district  as this court stated in the first appeal that cause of action to enforce that started to run in one thousand nine hundred eighty seven when the company declared bankruptcy because it was a simple contract it was governed by a three year statute three things and as a result in one nine hundred ninety it's right to enforce the guarantee expires but you don't disagree that if the if the negotiable the argument goes against you then the statute limits doesn't go in your favor either summary judgment as well against both parties after giving them an ample opportunity to put forward any evidence they had and the affidavit that they put forward from the manager of the bank those not state with the date of that payment bhatt i think it's quite clear that this was not in the ocean it's for men and i think silverman you very much put your finger on it i think ultimately the banks argument puts much more weight than it will bear one the past tense of and not only is it too much weight because for the reasons you pointed out which is the word owed is used elsewhere to talk about our future debts which have to read that whole sense in that sense really has two entirely different functions right  this is on page one hundred fifty six of the record the first half of the sentence is an affirmative statement of what the guarantee is women need to do and then the second half of the sentence is a quarter of out if you will that tells you some things this guarantee is limited to the payment of the note defined term and the performance of the obligations under the loan documents defined term and no is defined on this very page as the piece of paper of even  year with that evidence is the loan of three point seven million dollars period it doesn't say and amendments in the future and they realize that's a problem because they then try to point you to a definition in a different document that is the court referred to in the first opinion what three and then four as well say is that is gearing to war i'm giving you permission to go ahead and modify the arrangement with the plaintiff with the company however you wish and if you do that it's not going to let me off the hook now that's an answer to the argument that was made in rowland's and mayor you had a guarantor and you had a company and for some period of ears the bank kept giving book and enroll in sin this court loaded language very similar to three and four and said that no that's the answer to that you gave the the lender permission to do this so three and four accomplish that and for so that macqueen you're not are you that was in the music of the actual that we could if we felt that his decision was so correct on so many different grounds that it was really not necessary or appropriate for us to be here disagreeing with anything he did but yes i  do believe that they got a second bite at the apple this court did not intend when it sent the case back the first time it sent it back in our view to plead and prove the existence of innovation a new contract supported materials i mean i will address that other point i think you're correct that at best always unsettled around the country at the time this was what was unsettled and this was done not in the district in the district and i i do but the fact is is that a law in the district of columbia and frankly it still is today in the sense that after the amendment i think he suggested it least in that footnote in a later opinion that he thought it would not be applied  retroactively and i think the comparison to maryland which d c does look to sometimes in the absence of d c authority is very telling because the appellant themselves brought it up what happened there is that the general assembly of maryland  adopted the u c c change judge hargrove they ruled it was not retroactive they are very critical of that decision but that's what he said and then the general assembly of maryland came back a second time and essentially over will judge hargrove and hailed it is right to act and said that in so many words and under the test that applies in the district of columbia where there is a real strong presumption against retroactivity when the when the statute is silent it requires that sort of compelling evidence and what they have to do switch is you can find statements among the people who grafted the u c c change that very thought it was consistent with past law sums that are already oh well bat is one of the things that were first we think it was also intended to refer to a mouse that might you're after the but in any event the first half of that sentence makes it very clear that whether the carve out is that broad or not the basic statement of what's being guaranteed is limited to those defined terms and if you go through the definitions of note and one documents they just keep coming back to even a year with which seven million dollars and all commit leave the only sends anywhere in any of these documents where my client guaranteed anything is the first sentence of paragraph one and again document but but murray there was an excess station there was a very clear statement at the top of the very page that had the signature on it said the undersigned are signing this under seal and yet neither of them wrote the word sealed next to their signature or saying if they were given anything and murray despite that very clear evidence of intent said that's not a sealed document because there's nothing they don't blow that follows up the at the station this case is be sealed how come the person who drafted it didn't put him at his station above the signature lives but in any of that there is not the slightest evidence in this document that in fact the guarantor was delivering the sealed documents and if it really was the key to their intent that they not make but one without that should have closed the one and there's no stopping here because nobody was misled all you have to do is look at the last page of the guarantee  under seal there's no at gestation and there's no c so nobody was misled that would give rise to a you want to stop so unless the court has any other questions you would be m patient ok thank you thank you very much your counsel here time left right ok the common law contracts especially when this integrated documents is that you read them all together where you have to do still know and loan are defined in the stock and i think that's just shorthand your honestly you don't have to you know keep on saying what the amount of money is so you don't we should not consider the definition in this document because it surely know i could you should consider a note in the context of the entire transaction  land by the vine to the company that would be subject to the guarantee gargi would government provide yes provided there was a written amendment to the note which i don't understand why why is it ha if you read paragraph three the way my brother wants you to read it you know the paragraph or it does the same thing but i want to stress this isn't the rawlinson problem robinson is right on point on paragraph three