should be affirmed i'd like to start with the state of the record and based on the prior questioning it sounds like the core understands the argument the district court found expressively that e this point is that the most direct path to affirming is through the local rules are facts are treated as undisputed and they supported the district court's findings it gets into the local rule problem there is also a significant waiver issue that addresses just about every claim in contention in the case there are several instances where he does not address every round that the district court cited in support of its rulings and by failing to address the district courts crowns each and every one of them they've abandoned any challenge to the ground that they don't reach and that's a proper legal basis to affirm as well under the  precedent of this circuit so let's talk about the waiver issue starting out on our claim for declaratory relieve our request that the court finds a matter of law that good cause exists that there were several things that the district court cited to several specific breaches as accorded a finding of good cause to terminate and e t i it does not address any of them squarely head on much specifically notes that in its order and he doesn't address it at all and they're grieving and that fact was was undisputed and i agree with a question by judge wilson should that be enough isn't though if you look at the if you look at our local rule fifty six dollars statement of material facts in their response that they don't they don't deny that that's what happened the evidence wasn't even out and it was there in black and and that bridge alone was enough but that wasn't the only breach e t i also gave a presentation to its sales network touting its product as superior to ours they said eat eyes yes engines have a huge advantage over our industrial diesel counterparts and let me ask was that a reference to doit's the answer was yes so here they are telling their sales team we've got a huge advantage over this presentation this conversion of this customer from voice to forward lead to increased profitability for us and increase market share does not deny that that's exactly what the airlines and said hey i hear you guys are still buying from doit's i'm surprised you're not looking at four gasoline engines more and more and they just report also noted the st several years in iran it had and national publication touting for gas engines as the solution implied a problem the solution to cheer who are diesel engines and the district court found this is important page nineteen of where the district court found that any one of those breaches alone was enough and so that put on the burden of showing why the district court got it wrong with respect to each and every one of those findings and it didn't it didn't explain a single one of those things somehow does not constitute a violation of the distributor agreement so that's it for the declaratory action claim they also have a said we look forward to continuing the relationship with years to come and the district court granted summary judgment against that claim on two separate grounds number one the promise itself was indefinite  by on promises of that nature to rise to legal rights so two separate grounds for summary judgment that this report cites you each addressed directly it was supporting legal authority either one of those closing the claim they don't address at all so that's another waiver issue let's talk about the breach of contract claim lots of waiver problems there the only provision that they cite to and the brief before this court i section five point or the distributor agreement that section says that we boys while timely fill the orders once we accept them we will time to fill them and if the acceptance ar except to st and then time they failed to fill so they only dress that item by the district court argue that the district court got it wrong that they missed in order that we accept it and that the district court failed to account for that they just they don't address that at to supporting legal authority that argument is well if complains about encroachment they complain that we improperly sold in their territory now they don't in their brief cite to a specific contract or vision but let's address it anyway they complain about encroachments we made it improper sales district court cited two grounds for summary judgment against that claim number one at section twelve of the distributor agreements we are expressly permitted to make various categories of sales and he has territories were permitted to sell to international organizations were your allowed to sell to government and he's who we are allowed to sell permissible category customers that was it easy i did not produce evidence of a single improper sale assailants would have any that's not covered but then the rights that we reserve and they don't address it in their their grief and they didn't address it doesn't address that filing by the district where either says there's a waiver problem there i want to switch finally tsui i's claim under a new jersey franchise act contends that the district court err in its application of the choice of walk provision set forth and the distributor agreement and it's an all encompassing choice of  exclusion of the laws of any other jurisdiction so not just the agreements themselves but to all transactions contemplated by it's easy itis not challenge the district courts i mean as a matter of contract interpretation that finding was incorrect in other words they all take issue with the district court's interpretation of that choice of law provision their argument is that applying the choice of law provision is contrary to public and under georgia law a choice of law provisions such as this one is binding in force at all unless it's in force meant we violate the public policy of the state of georgia ers argument here is that applying a choice of they don't sparingly address the choice of long rules that govern this case and once you collect you apply those fools the question answers itself is entirely consistent with georgia public policy