this case handed in the trial court for a number of years but as my next got out essentially on their first motion it is our position that judgment newly acted hastily in inter breach of contract for warranty and a separate claim for negligence we're not here to argue we're not here to argue some kind of a little weak thread claiming that we might still have a warranty claim  that we feel that our negligence claim against us miners was taken away from us wrongfully that these warranty language and these warranty limitations cannot limit or about these because of what they say they say first of all as we all know the contract was drafted by as mine it's got their big name all across the top of this board boilerplate language from them the law says that th in case the courts use these three one prerequisite is their call first of all there must be a strict construction these clauses must be strictly construed second here's the inten brings us to the two cases that we rely strongly upon the burr wind case and the tile case burl mine is from the federal courts as is gates and the the cou court gates comes from the federal court they're both attempting to interpret illinois law one comes on our way and gates may be a little more limited but the one case talking directly on these issues from  interpreted in favor of the city of ottawa and against as money it's meaning you don't know everything against him but when you're interpreted language when you're looking at the language you must lean towards favoring it not an exclamation and less that one against as moderates and in favor of the city of ottawa we clearly have a claim back against them for an amount that we can see at least to the amount of the purchase price so their own language of the what i have to say about the as my next issue i would like to move on since i have limited time and talk about what i think is important on the second issue and that is the issue regarding the architect which i think flies in the face of all summary judgment standards summary judgment just require some evidence or question fact to go to the jury and we think it's here on two levels let me talk about the facts which i think separate buildings which is crucial in this case there is this brand new building with all the new water pipes in it in everything and then there's the whole building to get rid of it which is the office building and he added there is a who are there existed before a i also know from my experience that every time the a commercial building with a floor there's two types during systems it should be in there a big dream running along the middle so the water flows from the sides toward the mill or if you don't do that to drains big along two edges of the building with a slight green toward the edges so the drainage in that commercial building and he admits he knows they did not exist in the water treatment plant they did not exist there now he didn't sign those drawings but he is he knew they weren't there then what does he do and here's where he is negligence comes into play and this is this is the only issue we're going at against the architects don't be misled to our office building when we knew there was in any good drainage in the water the new water treatment plant building with water under pressure now it's our position his testimony in another self says says the standard it could determine maybe that's wrong maybe that's bad water goes down hill he knows there's a lot of water he knows himself there's inadequate drainage but he still opens a door or designs a downhill there needs to be an expert and i'll get to that in a minute there's been no testimony that he violated standard care of an architect in this area regarding his contractual undertakings and i will get to mr gallons affidavit in a second day but this this is interesting and i'd like to give you a timeline for this just so you know basically files its motion for summary judgment made two thousand and nine on september seventeenth although plaintiff originally anticipated the sensitive hiring an architectural expert in order respond to basically his motion for summary judgment based upon further analysis of these depositions primarily the deposition of george  plane believes it is not necessary to expend funds to retain an architectural expert at this time however suffered tension might become necessary as the case drops twelve twenty three zero nine our files its response the water and of bill is the proximate cause of this damage to the city i would agree with your our band if mr pirie was responsible for the design of that building the new water treatment plant  advice and say you don't have any other questions for me to sit down and be quiet i think you can sit down be quiet despite these strict rules of construction those of the three villages mention despite the strict rules of construction however a specific reference to quote unquote negligence or its cognates is not required that's the one in of this case you can look city the city accepted the terms and conditions of the contract and daresay the city was able to read and understand the country even the big firms which swept up the attorney from europe that have we have a limited warranty and provision that taught us about damages that it's not a lunatic ation on for example the negligence of other course looking at almost identical language and i mentioned half a dozen as well but even without the word negligence in the exclusive remedy he tries to say well you don't need to include the word negligence in there in the exclusion just somehow slewed negligence well the case law has that as a general boilerplate ok you don't have to have the word negligence but it is trying to get out this trying to get out from liability so let's look at the contract in our case it doesn't say to work it doesn't say negligence it doesn't say strict liability there is no exclusion of tort claims in are as minor as contract and that that should answer the net the one thing that i want to say in response on the basle light on the vasily issue is there is some complaint by them even though the again an affidavit is on file some kind of complaint from them that