me asking this question since the first april twenty third letter makes it very clear that some of the concepts the to maintain should be kept confidential the  acknowledge is that the sum it is is greater than the sum of the parts good answer this question if the big ten was already aware of such concepts they would be required to keep those knowledge no court in any jurisdiction ever has recognized the whole performance exception to the statute of frauds in the context of a confidentiality agreement in circumstances like this and we'll be cited a few cases in other jurisdictions arise in that circumstance are precisely why this is the statue of frauds in place it's an evidentiary safeguard that's the design to prevent the problems and risk of abuse frankly that would occur in those circumstances welsh incorrectly conflates and i think this is one of the fundamental problems of this case a breach of confidentiality with misappropriation a conversion of his alleged property there's no breach of contract simply by virtue of the fact that the conference later introduced the big ten work with or without russia's input in the absence of some restriction on its ability to do so and there's no allegation whatsoever that suggests that there was any limitation having lost and then not appealed his trade secrets claim before this court welsh cannot make an end run around the trade secrets act by censure the claiming that by virtue of developing a network the confort somehow breach of confidentiality  cheap confidentiality policy of her bow which basically restricted any employee's ability to write a tell all book about his or her work at that or go on the oprah winfrey show the plaintiff in  opinion doesn't even discuss the statute of frauds so cody's very much unlike the facts of this case and in fact the player in cody didn't even appeal the dismissal of her breach of contract when the only issue in the case was the declaratory judgment came and which and in that case the defendant hired the plaintiff to develop a computer software program in accounting and business package for the defendants clients and then to develop beta test it and make ready for distribution the computer software package package the plaintiff allege that there was a set compensation formula for which the parties had agreed and that he did all the things that were required of him under the contract that the software package was developed it was tested it was made ready for distribution it wasn't fact this provision and then his claim basically was the defendant pay me for the work that i had already performed and so in that circumstance the plaintiff that everything that was expected of him here in contrast plaintiff worked for more than two years as a caregiver to the deceit but at the outset of her appointment she allegedly was told we're going to take care of you financially because she had moved to colorado to only way to take care of her older relatives she performs those services for two implied in fact contract and of course we know that the standards for breach of an implied in fact contract are different from those of an express contract in fact well speak and this litigation in federal court by alleging that it is very first complained that he had applied in fact contract we moved to dismiss it one finally schieffer versus work which is another case that he cites involve the self christmas trees over twelve years it's a minnesota case the plaintiff performed all the labor required and it wasn't paid so all the cases that we where there is an alleged exception based on for performance involve services already rendered over a series of many years pursuant to compensation for loss for which they were not paid there's not even an allegation anywhere in this case of any alleged right to compensation things you know that would be helpful to the conference those are facts those are conclusions and you can't have a breach of confidentiality unless in the first instance there's information that is actually confidential where in the second many complain is welsh alleged that anything in particular is confidential he doesn't he just attaches the whole business plan these it up to the court to scour the record and identify particular facts that supposedly are confidential it's not this court's job it's not the big ten's job to try to find facts that might support his point secondly in this gets back to the to the point i was making earlier about conflating this breach of confidentiality with misappropriation you can't have a breach of confidentiality unless there's an actual disclosure and having rejected the plan to introduce its own general that's exactly what happened defend it introduced speed vision which with which shared some similarities with the plainest proposed business plan but because there was no limitation on the defendant's right to do that offered acceptance occurred in response to your honor's questions in oral argument just rounds said well the first was unable to twenty third ninety ninety eight and then there's a second acceptance that made ninety ninety eight the first acceptance by itself tells us a lot well should already disclose the business plan in advance of april twenty three nineteen ninety eight how do we know that the lady's letter says this letter acknowledges receipt of the business plan and the disclosure cannot accompany a condition that is a prerequisite to confidentiality that's the keen case that we cited in our case so you can't just turn over a business plan even if it's stamped confidential and then claim that there's a confidentiality thing that the cat's out of the bag how is it supposed to happen you're supposed to say i have a plan i'm not going to disclose it unless you just claim that any alleged contract existed instead he listed a number of conditions to the existence of any contract whatsoever first that the conference had to be satisfied with the further development second that the conference required approvals of the board of directors and finally that they're there will be quote the negotiation in execution of definitive agreements on what what's interesting is well she makes this presents this plan to the commissioner of the wayne abel and then after welsh ever reach out to the conference and say well you know i presented this plan please confirm that you're not going to do anything or that there's any alleged agreement the precludes the conference from developing its own big ten network so when it happens years later whether his contract was oral or it never filed an instruction and there's obviously an important reason under illinois law why you need to plead whether it's oral or written there are different statue of limitations on the world versus where the oil contracts versus written contracts and while he relies on the