court's decision in our favor by its favor and in addition there were four other cases he'll as the chief justice just mention where we also and they also went to the fifth decisions from this fifth district which were in line with this one let me explain a little bit about the procedural posture too because we're in somewhat of an unusual situation  the parties appeal to the public or in this case ironically even though we sued the defendant while country excel intervene and they were allowed to intervene the defendant lost the case it was a these types of the license agreements and i'll even mention in the act and even referenced once there is no procedure set for for hearings on these types of cases the court felt that because this was a in the circuit court in again there were multiple cases the one i'm going to address as well as all the same issues and the circuit court we found reached on track action against judgement action is real controversy here they're going to reach our contract and we want you to join them from allowing excel to go forward with their contract was too late as i said we want that's it's a simple reach of contract matter and there is nothing in this act that says that these type of pre license agreements are going to be  respect to one of these location raymond's which is not yet use and i might add the definition of a user agreement is very very simple it's nothing that wires expertise of there was not because to pursue it on damages there that two step process made sense because the act hard to place that there would be this here here there is no indication whatsoever in th explicitly or crossroads by looking at all the circumstances indicates that this is something that requires expertise of the board of the ended for there to be jurisdiction then on and only then injury judgment in favor of us and forcing the very contracts that brings here today these are simple contracts which the parties entered into to propose terms for a proposed gaming out or asians subject licensure only these agreements say all over them that they're intended to be subject to the act and the only after this contemplated by the agreements is that the parties will buy and be licensed by the board they actually requires only place for the act references or using agreement that says that there must be an express written use agreement between license ari's before machines may be put in so the whole industry read this and in contemplation relicense process has gone on with the involvement in a google of the game for the result here that is sought by self which intervened in the case is really a retroactive invalidation these these very location events so the board has had all the information i want so that's why i answer your question the other answer your question is in our case particularly this case the agreement that we ha and the world rules don't speak to that either another credibly important point is that if you get past the plain language of the statute and the word rules and you go into the extremes of evidence or this if you look at all the things th which is just i think a posture story outside of our specific facts of the case when you go back to the evidence here and we put on uncontroverted case of evidence that if you're going to look at the board actual practices from the very beginning of two thousand and ten application specifically says applicants provide us copies of any of your gambling terminal placement agreements not you syrians they've known all along this is what the industry's been doing they also ask in that very same agree in very first application which is still the application place today for the parties to the applicants to identify every person involved in solicitation every agreement relating to a disbursement of money there regulating their finding out who is involved and they've known about the licensure agreements their investigative overview for the location requires that the location actually have their  remains can be enforced is a matter for the courts but we'll get involved when you provided to us as sory there is no magical transformation these are the same agreements that verse signed in two thousand and nine the parties intended all along recognized policy for promoting agreements and there enforceability and the industry is not well served if parties can't prepare for their eventual licensure one important thing is the board has capable of regulating this industry going to shape our proposed rules and asking for changes thank you for your times thank you thank you madam chief justice and then please the court my name is steven blogger and i represent a solid payment game and i'm going to splitting the argument was that from the attorney general's office on obvious dressing the substantive issues in the ip his sanction jay jay's equipment in these establishment that's only in response to the injunction issued by the trial court in this case which the court refused to stay that you can have some kind of came in contract other than you simply justice thomas your question was right on the mark it can't have an agreement that doesn't fit their justice carman you asked about illegal  when you take the triple seven result it leads to people coming right back into the system they get everything that would happen under the bridge again mr vance talked about they didn't pay any money for it was off future revenue that's exactly right they basically said we're your partner j j we're your silent partner we're not out of the remit of the game or didn't give us a license but we're going to be in there anyways taking financial other than the two justices who sat on it since it was issued have said it's wrong this court should follow suit is justice smith said triple seven allows mobsters and gaming contracts and then sell those contracts to others who can get license that's not with the legislature and vision by hope all that's the same position we're here with today some no associations with felons including did come to light on and they want to participate through the backdoor when the courts when the i g p says you can't do it through the front door the only thing that sanctions it is triple sub now the question of should they action gaming  unknown whether these people would be able to get licenses here they did least one didn't but these kinds of agreements existed in the industry for some time in the board was very well aware of the man and perhaps sanction them the board was aware of them however tak merits abrogate trip south and hold that the only license agreements are those under the video game you please the court my name is frank just shot and i represent the illinois gaming board this court should affirm the appellate court's decision because the board has exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether a location agreement it's the standards of a use agreement and the administrative code that because the videogaming act grants the board the authority to establish minimum standards for syrians and the power to enforce those standards in public or correctly concluded that the board has exclusive jurisdiction because their claims present a routine contract dispute that does not affect the court's authority or use agreements second they argue that the legislature's grant of authority to the board was not specific enough so fast exclusive jurisdiction i'll now address those two arguments and that or first a contract for the placement and operation of videogaming terminals atmos out by since the salesman isn't forcible it and only if receive the statute protections and then because the videogaming act prohibits the placement of terminals at an establishment unless done pursuant to a use agreement a contract for placement of terminals at an establishment cannot be enforced unless it meets the standards of use agreement indeed there's no real dispute that james j ventures can operate terminals at whiles establishment only if its contract with wild is a valid use agreement and the parties arguments responds that this was never a valid use agreement because it never complied with the with the standards and yet ministry of further all the parties claimed that their arguments are consistent with the board's implicit position on the matter essentially they're asking this court to predict what the board would have decided had the issue been brought in front of the board in the first place thus the parties arguments on the merits further highlight the fact that a contract for the placement of videogaming terminals is valid there is a forceful only if and sense of use and further the reasoning in the triple seven decision further supports that conclusion although their court incorrectly assumed to declare that their contract with wild was an forcible contract jane j benchers was necessarily asking the court to decide whether their remit met the standards of use agreement but the legislature assigned the responsibility for making that decision to the board this court's precedents established that the general assembly may best exclusive jurisdiction in an administrative agency by an acting and comprehensive statutory s and in doing so created a comprehensive statutory scheme to govern the operation of this brand new industry in doing so the legislature created a right to engage in video gaming conduct which never before existed but the board reviews the user agreement at that time and either approves or disapproves of the placement of video gaming turmel's at establishing if j j ventures believes that wild and or excel was interfering with its ability to place to operate terminals under a valid use agreement it could have brought that it should have brought that information before the board then the board could have decided whether or not to pursue a disciplinary proceeding input on the matter which is important because courts generally grant sufferance to agencies interpretation of the statute that administers and it's on regulations here so in those instances the final decisions of the board would be reviewed by the oh well first the  public court yesterday had ministry of view and then at that point the court would have the benefit of the board's input which the court did not have here and which the court did not have and triple seven because it in both those cases they went straight to the circuit court now the parties indeed this court has consistently held with one exception that one determining whether or not the legislature has granted exclusive authority as exclusive jurisdiction to an agency it considers the underlying statute as a whole to determine to  decide what the legislative intent was in skilling that one exception the court did require its language specifically typecasting the circuit court of jurisdiction over a certain matter but this court has not followed that analysis in any other exclusive jurisdiction case either before or since and here when the videogaming act is considered as a whole it becomes clear that the legislature intended for the board to have the authority to set the standards for you serene ments and to ensure that because the legislature through the videogaming act grants the board with exclusive jurisdiction to decide whether the contracts use agreement  here is the response from emily madison general counsel of the i g p we've consistently said that whether or not a contract entered into by an unlicensed terminal operator in an unlicensed video gaming location is a valid contract is an issue for contract law we've consistently said that a contract entered into by two unlicensed parties cannot be considered to use agreement pursuant to  that's their position now they've done a complete about face in for the first time after they've been aware of these agreements for years thousands of them and they say we have exclusive jurisdiction to their interpretation what period yes that's what they've said now they've taken a different position before this board but how can they take position that this is the act is clear we have exclusive jurisdiction when just three years ago they said this is an issue contract law and this is an issue that should be decided by the courts and with respect to skilling and also said in their brief that skilling which we are express an outlier in should not be followed well this court in two thousand and eleven in crossroads sided schelling favorably or paragraphs three twenty seven forty three forty four forty seven fifty fifty one it it's not enough buyers for the very point that there must be some type of express indication that the state courts are the best and there is no express indication counsel and i point to anything in this other than their newly created argument that we now have with suzy jurisdictions and as i mentioned before in my opening remarks this is not rocket science whether or not it's a use agreement all it application process the entire act asset purchase agreement and all of those terms was provided to the board these are not agreements or events that are happening as an end run around anyone the best policy and the best rule of law here is that interval seven and that is the courts determine whether there is a contract offense or some other thing but the board still is going to be able to license and regulated parties the board didn't get up here and say that the  should not be allowed to decide this because we are unable to regulate if if we don't get to make that decision because that's not what he or triple seven or others are or if you're deciding let's make something clear excel intervene in every agreements like j and j did and other operators by assignment excel and gauged in the very fact is that it now in downs and while the sole reason is that it wishes to avoid its liability for paying our manager nine hundred thousand dollars to go around and interfere in violate his covenants and breaches sure we do it wishes to avoid the litigation referenced in the county and that's what that he says about but this case is simple and it's between  improper activities if you look at these agreements there are three pagers they all say usually the parties are only going to engage in activities that are subject to the act importantly the board has s perspective only but even more courtly when you read that rule to this day the board's rule says that the terminal operator must now be licensed when it enters into one of these events but the license the establishment does not have to be licensed so under the board's rule right now as amended the parties can enter into an agreement and the establishment does not have to be licensed there is no argument that you could possibly make otherwise that's what the rules says so the idea that it less it's always signed by license parties that is illegal it's not square with the board's rule that's not with the access and it's just not consistent with the policy  at the time of the assignment my client we made an application under the board's rule six ninety five says that when you receive a notice of denial a request for a hearing is deemed granted until denied and our  application and our request for a hearing was not tonight till september twentieth twenty two thousand and twelve the assignment here took place and one for the board's in charge of regulating these parties it can decide who should that and assign its assets and get out of the business which is what my client chose to do instead of feeling further and seeking a license and it's repeatedly done that with other operators and the board has an argue to the contrary it didn't controvert a single one of our acts in the statement of fact it doesn't claim that these agreements there's no policy reason for going backwards in time so that's something that's very important in this case it doesn't just affect my client the argument is being made by itself that all agreements are invalid unless they are signed by two license parties when all agreements can be assigned it would affect the thousands of license there are five thousand licensed establishment to go back and say  a ruling from this court that all of these agreements are legal because they're not signed by the license parties is inconsistent with the rules but imagine the tunnel it would be placed on all of these parties that are currently operating not by my clients everyone in the thank you for your arguments this morning you excuse it this time