meant please the court joel henry on behalf of appellant top rank this is a simple case about whether an arbitrator in a contract dispute may consider controversies that while related to the contract are arbitration award where the arbitrator exceeds her power and the arbitrators power is limited by both the time by by both the express language and the contract is this court make clear in coast trading and also by the scope of the issues presented or submitted by the parties since the arbitrator having authority in the first instance to interpret th arbitrator's ability to where freedom to interpret the submission is limited to whether or not that submission is ambiguous just as the court's interpretation of a contract clause is limited to whether or not the language in the contract is ambiguous certainly an arbitrator has as wide berth where the contract provision is ambiguous but where it is unambiguous as this court made clear in close crating the arbitrator is bound by what the parties had agreed to in the contract similarly where the submission to the court where the demand the nature of the dispute is specific we would argue that the arbitrator is bound by what is you were suggesting that the parties set up walls and i kind of had the arbitrator can't go outside those walls is that correct i'm sorry are you yes i think it's exactly what you suggested so you ever seen an arbitration demand which says that the arbitrator can consider questions of credibility so and this isn't the impeachment most of the time from something outside the walls and if so aren't you suggesting that basically you wan the arbitrator into making a determination in your way the arbitrator has to have a certain amount of discretion as to what he or she is going to hear and and take into account in the signing case isn't that true i do and i think especially when it comes to its fact finding role but when it comes to the issues i just just deference we do give deference to those awards they are hard to get away from but it is i think particularly for that reason that that the arbitrators must stick to the scope of those issues that the parties placed before them because when the party does agree to go to arbitration they are forgoing certain judicial protections and it is it is much more difficult to vacate an arbitration award than it is a lower court proceeding so when you forgo those protections it must be under the guise that you are only going to arbitration on those issues that are agreed to  the clause the only clause of the contract that was put before the arbitrator in this case was the terminations clause and that this demand was that you will be ninety thousand more dollars for the second year of the contract and she didn't it correct specifically under the terminations clause and under the terminations clause it simply is not correct that that the top rank  all in is not was not before the arbitrator and i don't understand that i don't see that it was before the arbitrator it could have been before the arbitrator were not suggesting that of the extent of this claim and noticed that it was part of the subject of the arbitration this issue was raised before the arbitrator as i understand her decision  find that that finding is completely outside the realm of permissible findings in order to come to the conclusion you want i don't think the rules of appellate procedure provide for that type of because we would have come to a different decision or we think it's wrong correct you wrecked ok so what you're saying is that this was incorrect she shouldn't have said this but i don't see that it reaches the level of problem that permits us to interfere and i guess that's the difficulty i'm having i understand your argument that it's wrong but i can't get that i i'm not sure it's a matter of level i think it's a matter of tight and i think here the question is not whether or not she erred in interpret ing wasn't counting in the forty five thousand dollars because otherwise he wouldn't be asking for ninety thousand howlers i mean just as a matter of logic i understand your concern your honor i don't see that the demand is ambiguous  it specifically states that the demand is being submitted will you see it or not doesn't count very good here though the demand is under section to see it to me an d the nature of the dispute we lay it out in our reply brief on page three of the reply brief says claimant low on brewster a professional boxer entered into a promotional rights agreement with respond  top ranking which granted respondent the right to promote mr brewster's boxing matches on or about november eighth two thousand top rank exercised its rights to terminate the agreement in accordance with section two c section c provides the top rank exercise its right to terminate offering shall pay mr brewster an amount equal to the difference between the aggregate purses received by mr brewster during that contract year thirty thousand dollars and the minimum guarantee for such year one hundred twenty thousand dollars which necessarily calls into question whether that thirty thousand dollar amount is the correct amount that was for them the dispute between the parties whether they're wasting thirty thousand dollars or whether they were seventy five thousand dollars as the purse for that contract year but even the arbitrator here recognizes that it was undisputed that the purses during that year were actually seventy five thousand dollars that was not in dispute so so while i think this may have put top rank on notice that brewster was mistaken about the amount of the person is that would apply during this contract year and the promotion rights contract does very specifically divide this into one year terms there was no dispute that during the second year the purse winnings were seventy five thousand dollars there there certainly was a dispute as to whether or not the court should stand  back and look at the amount the top rank owed brewster and under the entire contract as one whole or whether or not it should be lived whether or not the analysis should be limited to the terminations laws of to see morning and may please the court i'm john gaddy appearing on behalf of the appellee layman brewster the the standard as the court has set forth is that an arbitra decision is reviewed both a limited and highly deferential review at this level the parties here are contracted voluntarily to submit disputes amongst themselves to the arbitration in a binding arbitration and ask that arbitrator to rule on the disputes and what was the dispute and the dispute here was whether or not there was a breach of the contract of the promotional agreement contract and whether or not and what was the amount of that dispute and that was submitted to the arbitrator the arbitrator reviewed the agreement as the parties asked her to do the parties submitted a live testimony and a two day arbitration and with respect to the specific issue that appellant is now arguing to the court that wasn't raised in their answer or their counter claim to the arbitration demand they raised that at the last minute  arbitration about whether or not this money should be applied to year two or year one as the arbitrator said in her decision and as the undisputed facts stated at the arbitration from wife testimony from witnesses from both sides that the forty five thousand dollars that the appellant has put at issue was to be applied to the first year because there was a they had failed to pay a guarantee for the first year so that was to be applied that way that was undisputed so this issue about trying to decide which year it fell into first off goes against what the evidence that was submitted to the arbitration the arbitrator and it also goes against what the intent was of the parties and as  we submitted this to an arbitration we asked the arbitrator to interpret that contract the arbitrator interpret that contract based on the facts that were presented to her based on the evidence and that is what has happened as while we are at this level now that has to be left alone unless we see a a clearly irrational decision or a manifest disregard of the law which there's been no evidence of that at all and in fact the arbitrator's ruling has been very reasoned and rational and down the line applied the facts to this case fairly we presented our position in our papers if there's any demand the arbitration demand specifically says as a result of top ranks breach of the promotional rights agreement mr brewster is seeking recovery of ninety thousand dollars punch plus interest there on and attorney's fees and cost pursuant to section twenty three of the agreement there was no dispute with the parties that they understood that this was a binding arbitration and they understood that there were an attorney's fees provision that the prevailing party would take advantage of  there were costs that were attributed by the arbitrator to the in favor of the prevailing party and there was interest there on that the parties stipulated to so there really are no issues  i rely on paragraph two c and only on paragraph to see the only issue that mr brewster put before the arbitrator was the entitlement underneath the terminations cla determination clause was restricted to damages incurred during the year of the breach that was the second year guarantee was one hundred twenty thousand dollars the combined purses were seventy five t court while well i understand that mr brewster is now arguing that all of these issues were put before the arbitrator because all of them could have been they weren't thank you