understanding here stems from the contract and the nature of the claims that have been raised against both spar entities here you have a wage act claim a claim of the massachusetts way jack and to you claim it's not a standard i do not receive the wages from my employers the claim is effectively this i was to receive certain compensation from in this instance two entities as a result of the decision by so so now you want us to say that your client your clients haven't gone to great trouble to set up such corporate entities we should deem them both that they decide to have contract you haven't signed a contract and now you want us to agree into the contract something that isn't there i'm not asking anything be read into the conflict it's not there and simply saying that based on how this case has been framed it is an equitable to send one between the plaintiff and your client under the massive weight in our laws my question was what provision of the master agreement with the court in that action need to interpret and he said the arbitration clauses right to contract but is there any dispute between the parties concerning the meaning of seven ten or fourteen but it is your idea that if there was relationship now it might be the one fact that he can point to to prove the relationship other than his friend saying he seemed to go to that office every day would be and i have a contract with them look at it but why does it suddenly now disable him from being able to proceed on that which is our claim without arbitration given that he never signed any agreement to arbitrate because of the unique nature of the claim that this isn't simply a matter of i provided services and didn't get paid that is not what he's claiming he said i provided services received a certain amount and because of the assets that i was forced to incur i am now getting paid less and i should have under the wage act to pay doesn't begin that could be could make that exact same or even if you had no contract right circuit they basically said that when a contract is simply factually significant to a claim and the claim itself does not rely on it that is not the type of a situation which gives rise to ripples it is simply factually significant to the claim  merchandise and services for its benefit it has specifically structured itself to be completely separate from s p s both in terms of their corporate status in terms of the relationship that they have with each other they're physically district court found spark easily could have been a party to it and sided that they wanted to have nothing to do with it and so when you get to the point now where their practices of treating these individuals and the contractors are being challenged they suddenly claim it would be an equitable for them to sort of deal with the consequences that may come from the very strategic and calculated decision that they've come up with over the years for how to structure selves and give each of these individuals should be noted relationship with these individuals and again as we've stated our papers courts have consistently been unwilling to sort of relieve them of the consequences of that straw shereen when they seek to invoke a contract that they intentionally avoid as it suits them and so on a macro level and then also micro level the fact that mr hogan does not rely on this contract in any way to make out his claims against bar there is no basis under interjected order more broader principles of fairness and equity defined that mr hogan is a sop from avoiding arbitration with an entity that he had no reason to exist or had no reason to know exists i meant to bet agreement or that you'd be working with them  i understand the argument of your opponent is it's true the different world you might have the same claim even if you had no contract with s p s but in fact you did have a contract with  and that's going to be helpful to you in making out your argument that you were treated unfairly under the mass waves look it's going to support the idea that you were an employee it's going to support the idea that you did in fact encourage these expenses so in that sense you are relying on the contract you don't have to but it's certainly what your case derives from is the fact that you had that employment relation with them as manifest in the contract you say that's not enough to trigger equitable stoppel and you  aside ok saying under mass law the mere fact that you point to the contract for factual support isn't enough to trigger it so i'm asking how it is sourcing i'm limited which is the presence of our court match up with that are intertwined with obligations and duties that the non signatory have and wins the plate to for the signatory and again there are no allegations here that are had any duties or obligations under the agreement itself that failed to fulfill which then caused mr owen harm as the courts pointed out it's not mentioned anywhere in that agreement so it follows logically that it can't have any responsibilities under it and so wonder sourcing a limited don't have the type of scenario under that i am happy to address third party beneficiary of the plain language of the contract and also the waiver issue but again our principle argument here against equity is that his claims don't depend on the agreement anyway and therefore there's no reason to stop him from it's it's out of the circuit it's a state court decision from california other why would know that in augusta case the standard of enter tried in this is very similar to the first circuit standard and there you had a situation that was much more similar to what we're dealing with here where you had  a third party temp agency that had a contract with a worker who supplied that worker to a third party and in the course of the relationship to the third party certain claims including claims of the california labor code arose and  despite the fact that he only signed an arbitration agreement with the ten stephanie agency the ultimate customer of the test that any agency was permitted to invoke at will stop and force the case in arbitration here you have what is according to complaint