act met which the contract continuously referred to was an attach and was never given to him as evidence is that correct and so how could he say that there is a valid written contract when isn't attached the court found that where there's knowledge between the parties wasn't there any discrepancy between parties have exactly what it back now contains not as to what the document contained and i would argue that the performance of i and isn't really contested in this appeal and that mr foley has only raised a few items that were not completed by our inc and we and that that those items were not completed and we do not contest the damage the part of the damage award that was awarded to mr foley for those items that were incomplete so it's not only the performance of by angus contests in this case it's the fact that mr foley has not paid the full value of the written contract and as i said they be painted in the kitchen they did it the granite with the document that was in the us the documentary evidence is a five page document the first document contains the contract place of five hundred thirty one thousand dollars as well as seat it property unfortunately once there was a lockout because the relationship between the parties went south that document is was at the property at that time and we do not have a copy of it and you didn't try and we didn't there was not one document and and and that's what the scope of loss contains it's an insurance document and that's how the replacement cost value was a sas against the property was through that scope or lots containing the replacement cost value of the property that was replaced by i  agreement wasn't attached and yet the court found that since the parties knew of the contents within that agreement it was still part of the contract and that that part of the contract is poor celebrities were  arguing that that cannot be the case there was no definite uncertain terms until the written a contract was executed and it was the intent of the parties that that contract would be the contract between the parties and that could not have been a contract at the time mr foley alleges that there was because at that time they did not know the scope of work and they did not have the scope of last document nor did they know the value of the repairs that needed to be made entered into evidence as well as the testimony of the parties that substantial work was done at the property everything was brand new pictures show new cabinetry new granite countertops new what's lying and that the what quality was quite good from those pictures we believe that we can prove that weighs substantially before on the contract minus the items that mr foley is contending that we did not perform and i said we are not just having those few items that amount to seven thousand dollars worth of damages we're just trying to recover  contract for the work that was actually performed so he did receive substantial payments as we will see into payment of half the contract which is two hundred sixty five thousand dollars and there is and was that directly from insurance paragraph i know schedule specifications it says expected project time of twelve to eighteen months from the issue of what permits the wood permits in this case way issued in may of twenty thirteen so by that time frame this contract would have been p all proposals were subject to sit in that chair and it's in on paragraph number thirteen this agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and may only be changed by written instrument signed by both parties there are no more agreements of any he said that this was an enforceable agreement and he pointed out the fact that the script of ross wasn't attached and therefore it was not in agreement and i don't reckon timing is still enforceable agreement i think that the term show and the parties and time show under the terms of an actual contract meaning he doesn't have to pay the full amount for the value of services that we performed because he contends that we're on time in performing then watch it again we can now work on time on it this contract this contract was not performed on time how many of the checks yet you know for the national payment of two hundred sixty five thousand dollars that is the amount that i am paid in total fright this project and than quite a one of the seventy nine thousand dollars which was offset by a twenty four  is the amount that's represented by the well is this meeting just features companies that they would give you know up to six hundred thousand dollars to rebuild this property or is it based on a number of up bill cost that mr foley is insurance company determined that the that would be the cost of the materials and labor to taste everything at the property brand new sure that's what the insurance company yes but don't you have a that is what the five hundred thirty one thousand represents it is the insurance company's assessment of the value of the work to be done at the property i only did this on that one at the property based on the insurance company's assessment of i submit so we did not provide fake receipts or anything in this case that is not in evidence as you will see when you review the back you have the testimony of a mr dr take who is the  credible or not it was and i don't think that the trial quite found that it was an credible evidence because as i mentioned the trial quite found that the work that was done at the property was substantial and that it was quite good claiming is procedures to do that as outlined in except for one which was entered into evidence in this case and it says you have to work with your insurance adjuster and provide documentation and at one point in time mr foley did work with his insurance and just  get an extension because he was negotiating having the scope of ross revise with that his insurance adjuster so that he could increase the scope of lost value so mr foley was aware of this procedure as he knew how to do it done there's two pages of what kind of work is going to be done and then it explains that this is the entire group of between the parties and then and it has a schedule of specifications large yes and that's when the parties executed the revised contract in february of twenty thirteen and what would be in this scope was in the first one or the are correct mr sawyer had to provide this paper so his insurance company on it to get the insurance company to pay out the claim so those are provided to mr fawley in relation to getting paid the payments paid out but between you and mr many hours of labor and you did all these things that you say entitle you to the entire balance of the trick by hundred thirty one thousand dollars you know give or take a few we have this this contract and they can show that the work was done at the property by the testimony of i would say both the parties and mr boies complained he contests that certain items weren't done and as i mentioned we had met that those will i'm not quite sure i understand is there any case that would suggest that an insurance company's scope of loss would ever support a claim for damages so seizing so on just the fact that the script contains the replacement cost value that is the insurance adjusters evaluation of the costs and that's what we have and that's what the ponies agree to pay for it the work that was to be done at the property or disagree that this is a lot of money this kind of work will be done yes so then when they're fighting over whether the work was done or not the one that says it was done just to prove it was done dispute the fact that certain items weren't done and we're willing to pay for those items that we would like to be paid the value of the work that we did do that you haven't established that yes we have a figure from the insurance company saying this  as i said we don't mind paying for those who would like to be paid in full for the items that weren't done and so the words really the whole basis of the court's decision was that since this wasn't done in a timely fashion i'm going to award a certain amount there was no scope or what to post from at that point and mr foley i child amended that he was working with had to make by the insurance adjustor in order to readjust that claim and until she did that there was no what that could be done because there was no scope of work document and there was no value of the scope of work at that  damages you contend that not only did he get twenty five thousand dollars worth of damages but he also got the full value of a completely renovated home in logan square and what we're