reply before critical than even my opening three because morgan stanley lays are maybe fifteen cases that they feel supported the proposition that you can have acceptance by silence when you don't have knowledge and yet the vast majority of cases with and i read the illinois supreme court as quoting not not nearly as much emphasis it may on joining molina signing that acknowledgement form but rather on just her receipt of that i don't know what it was called that initial notice and then continuing to work it was and i often the way i read that i believe struck her because we don't need to discuss whether she was her receipt of that initial material from you know in times from bush and then her continuing to work it did not play sampras at least as i read on her signing it's not a question this is what i'm trying to say she did sign it if she hadn't signed it and we had that question then the court would have to explain its reasoning there and it would have to put emphasis but we already have that it's something we never miss we know eight that she knew about the  he has those two pieces of information have now we're going to legal principle in the case and understanding that in the binding agreements that entered into now we could those facts and we could say all right maybe she didn't have any knowledge of it and maybe she received it and we go back to the inbox that's not what happened so the result didn't speak to that issue it didn't if we have a different issue we'll be talking about  under the federal arbitration act and its decision should be affirmed the parties entered into a valid and in arbitration agreement under illinois law and the operative facts here are not going to dispute at four thirty pm  arbitration program the subject line was repeated in large font at the top of the email and that you know goes on to use the word arbitration twenty four more times the body of the email explicitly and that any of these alternative methods of delivery proposed by mr guppy be used it matters not whether morgan stanley could have done this differently the question is whether or not the e mail that  actively measured knowledge apply couple to a particular recipient is required for an arbitration agreement to be enforceable the parties agree that melon that is the key case issue there which the court found to have been formed when the employer mailed resolution program to melbourne at which happened almost a year prior to malin as acknowledgement it in that manner and in fact the employer mailed its employees a brochure describing a new arbitration policy that they would be found to by continuing their employment and that mailing which did not it scenario and they send an email or to that effect and you get to the end of the year loads of people haven't seen the email and they get into early in the year and they realized no as in your example your honor the the there were statement argument might actually have more play there because there might not be a reasonable employer can just suddenly change your employment contract i mean we've heard already that deliveries except that steers me a little bit every six seconds we send off or what's going to are we going to end up with accepting that you're going to buy grill scout cookies and then there was a case with regard to the sale of the life insurance was in between the parties it's pretty clear i think on the record that the investigation was never completed never got an answer the investigation the one thing that we don't know for sure is when the investigation started in that relation that we do know this the prior september he announced that he'd been promoted to commander he announced that he would be but he didn't know when and we know that that was almost a year and a half after the insurance products came up