this time we'll hear first technology capital versus airborne maybe that's because there's only one party here arguing i don't know well that may be maybe they don't think you case is very interesting but it's a very simple case they please the court my name is michael garland i'm here on behalf of first downstream to a middle eastern buyer that we don't even know who they are what would happen here and this is this would happen before the contract was entered into possibly three days my client discovery we didn't know this before the case was started middle eastern bar looked at those facts and twelve hours later entered into a contract to buy the same plane so in other words first flight sold the plane downstream after it got its purchase agreement in order it came to us the same day by the plane and its goal was to make a quick eight hundred fifty thousand dollars agreed to buy it from us for two point one five and sell it downstream for three million of the appendix but they're in the record and we've cited them in connection with our summary judge reformation what happened well there's two different versions of the story the first version was mr dow who was the director of airplane sales for first  said when the middle eastern bar got the specifications the nine hundred twenty five pages he was too lazy and tired and didn't want to look at them so he reached out and said can you get me some some respects and mr dow testified that he got ahold of somebody in denver call and clark on stand send in these storm response vacations which he claimed later claimed went to the middle east but we know that that's not true that's his first affidavit the second affidavit slightly different but in any that we know the specifications came from denver the first flight and first flight attached into the contract sent that to dorney air who is our predecessor who looked at them he looked at the last page the last page is actually one of the nine hundred twenty five pages it references the tail number on the plane and the two serial numbers of the engines so he believed that they were related to his airplane that he was selling so he signed the contract and sent it back in connection with that response to paragraph twenty eight that he believed that the some respects were the specs for our plane and already in paragraph thirty one of our complaint we allege that he believed out we got into discovery we learn more facts about about what really happened and it is true it's not in our complaint but under the smith vs bear case it doesn't matter because we've alleged mutual mistake we're allowed to perceive magical why we didn't seek defense is a sham and them for weeks four weeks later exactly we move for summary judgment reformation and what happened here is the judge refused to even consider a reformation and she granted judgement on the pleadings which we say was a mistake war reformation and mutual mistake with the reformation has to be decided first because you're going to decide whether or not we fail to tender the correct plane in the air they were relying on the some respects to say we we couldn't create tend to the correct point and we say but if you substitute the correct specs to specs today actually reviewed the specs that are downstream buyer was satisfied with because their interest in specifications was equivalent and only equal to the downstream by mr dow testified we were going to own the plane we wanted to flip it we were only interested in getting the downstream buyer the plane with the specifications that he wanted and we know the downstream buyer signed a contract within hours of getting this one hundred twenty five pages so our request was to substitute nine hundred twenty five pages for the six pages that was behind the contract you have to decide that issue first before you can decide whether or not their title to judge you on the pleadings and if you do substitute they would never get a judgment on the pleadings we would get  aren't you know we're seeking to make if you look at the three page contract the first page of it describes are playing it's own tail number our engine serial numbers etc we're not trying to contradict it we're trying to get the parties true intention which was to sell for us to sell for them to buy and for them to sell again or playing at the annex one which is really the problem here with tactical salaries have you're seeking to it's one is not the right an x some other document that we're going to provide parallel evidence the accurate specifications in but doing that aren't you contradicting the terms get your argument is that you had an agreement with respect you would bob on an analogy you have an agreement with respect to an airplane and you identify it and the except into tach is specs from lawnmower and that obviously is not what the parties intended and therefore it should be refilled that's that's correct and the of this was overwhelming that everybody relied on the nine hundred twenty five page suspects which were are playing with the downstream bar relied on it signed a contract and then they signed a contract did the contract that came back to you which can be the specs which you say don't conform to parties and years and did not contract also contain the the number of the airplane and the serial numbers of the engines yes that conform to the plan that your client was if you look at the last page of detective summers it's actually seven pages we sent six  it and nine seven three t w reason i know that there was another case with the same airplane involved which preceded this litigation yes it's the only plane in the world with that tail number and it's the only two engines in the world with that serial number specifications sort of like that nobody intended to belong but that's that's out there in case thank you we will reserve decision