with respect to the interpretation of the contract but when she comes to analyze the case and reaches a conclusion the two seventy five is the record she things like the amount of the law the interest rate the repayment terms the identity of the lander and the time frame for performance yet if you i'll just take out the next person particle phrase and i'll come back and it will take the lead in funding in advance in the amount of up to one hundred thousand dollars to cover miscellaneous preproduction expenses  the pre production cost of the kind normally incident to a decent motion picture up to one hundred thousand dollars and the producer had the right to draw that money down at his discretion it's simply it's w now the doses below said this contract doesn't provide for him for look at it the first thing is in paragraph any there's a one point seven five feet right off the back and one point seven five or what one would be seventeen hundred fifty dollars i guess one hundred thousand dollars is a safety but more importantly if you look at paragraph between the financier is given a twenty percent ownership encouraged in the picture so he owns twenty percent of the motion picture things varying a financing be upfront and twenty percent of the motion picture in return for putting up to one hundred thousand dollars for preproduction expenses which is normally in purley limited and once the picture went into production and the production budget kicked there and they would get their hundred thousand dollars or whatever they lend right out of that fund couldn't be clearer then they said below there is no  his state of mind he should have responded the preacher we don't have a contract i don't have an obligation but he didn't say that he served i don't have the money so he understood that there was an agreement you simply wasn't performing contract in the california law provided and that's the question of law and your your able to do that and should do that under this appeal independent of the lower courts third party beneficia now that's a slam dunk if you look at the contract it's goes to the get out on my feet that's the name of the movie my life took as the name of a production company if you look at paragraph it says entertainment involved in helping to find distribution help to find banking interim financing to help finance the the helpline financing upon the contract the courts determination and the ruling by judge gunn of which was a question in my mind i'm very unfamiliar in real life with the entertainment industry and how things are done and in support the finding that laugh and agree to do anything but a range of loans and perhaps strapped lenders papers there was extensive evidence considered by the court the court consider the intention of the parties as important in determining what the mutual intent was to form a proceed on the production however there was no evidence that the principles of m l h ever communicated to any of the defendant of calis their intention also as i noted if you look on page sixteen through seventy  wanted in other words it could have joined with a cartel and colombia building offshore company in british virgin islands it could have been anything and all of a sudden that anything rises with likewise not knowing about it not knowing who's involved not knowing the principals not knowing what other types of   the the examination mr pritchard where he says something in fact i asked him for the money and he said he didn't have it that proves nothing number one the evidence was stricken and number two as mr glitter should know and what mr the district court and the bankruptcy court have both come to the opposite conclusion because i can thank you if you know one or two examples in my own experience so many can't you can't be true that merely bringing an appeal where somebody has lost so far or what new twist on the argument you bring before this court that would be any different to lead you to conclusions that any other judge is going to rule differently and if that doesn't exist which it doesn't offer and if this doesn't you know if that didn't exist when you brought your bill which he did