forth all the issues and i'd be pleased to answer any questions that you might have in the absence of questions i'll make a few points in san francisco truckster versus a brokered commonly that is the norm the various trucking compan throughout the city have a certain number of trucks either under contract or that they can use independent contractors so the way it works every morning is whoever needs services calls up and request a certain number of trucks and for asked and asked if i run out of trucks i simply broker someone else's trucks and everyone in the industry works this way now alan french testified he's an employee for hanson vice president justified that today here in ninety four han using truck brokers to broker trucking services and how does hansen ensure that the local trucking aspects are being complied with they count the trucks that are driven by truckers who fit the local trucking definition of the least they don't care whether it's brokered or not and in his testimony and it's in the record it's under seal and i'm sure you have it he says he refers to  that that british persist they did anything more than give walker a trading contract trucking contract and approved walker's dealing  local trucking responsibilities with us and as trucking in that for us in the declaration of steve navarro he says he set down with chambers and said ok we're going to be doing the trucking along with walker inconsistent with anything you just told us about about the way that the trucks are brokered in san francisco that is that it's generally understood if you get a contract that you may that you may use other trucks that have a logos on them and that's an accepted practice but that doesn't mean that you have a contract with other trucks that are involved in the through that brokerage process but that your honour's you mean that it doesn't mean that there's an an agreement between charlie walker and us and asked right which would make us a message intended beneficiary that's correct it would it would be well understood that you were but if you're going to hire we're going to hire walker to broker to get the truck deal that in the process if you run out of trucks someday that he's going to go over to us and asked or anybody else you doesn't have the capacity some disputed he had two trucks and no broken service whatsoever no ability now if i'm sitting down with a man who i'm asserting knows intends for me to benefit from the contract he enters into with another and i say you know in california disagreements and forcible and you know i'm going to rely on it i'm going to do the brokering services and that man says that's fine and then writes a letter in which he confirms that this is going to benefit us and us s and s is going to participate in this process he doesn't say it's going to be brokered and charlie will use trucks throughout san francisco they're not understand your point it says specifically s n s will be participating with charlie walker now if that's not an intention to benefit us and that's what would be at that point why didn't the mass demand be honest thing get their name out of the contract under what contract this was all oral we have a problem you can see from the record that charlie walker shifts back and forth and i can appreciate that you might say well if he's not a good guy then that should wash over to s and s s and s is not a good guy either and yes it in fact  have required some kind of writing and therefore there's an inference that it never had a contract if that's the angle you're taking your honor first i don't think that's at issue under no review we can take any evidence that's in the record but if the inference is there wasn't a contract an clear that he was pushing on chambers to come forward with as much as he could get chambers to come forward to but there was resistance and now i don't read from the record that his failure to say will you give me a written contract means that there was either no agreement or or implies that there was no agreement with walker and british pacific or that there was no agreement between s and s and walker or s and s and british to survive because the documents brokerage works in describing it in fashion that mr connor just did with respect to brokering being so common in the hand being handled the way that was described but whether or not brokering is what he believes client believed he was going to get the facts are undisputed that the san francisco ordinance in question states  local truckers means those truckers that are certified as local business enterprises and that's at e r for anyone and are certified the language used by the legislature by the local legislature doesn't mean they were certified in the past doesn't mean they have an application to become certified in the future it means they are certified and the evidence is done disputed that mr walker was not certified during this time period and in fact the evidence is in deposition testimony and i can refer you to the record for that that's e r one seventy two thirteen two e r one seventy three line three decertification syrians is in the record three sixty one and indeed if one were to check the website the human rights commission which according to the testimony in the record  of reliance damages and losses incurred in engaging with him rather than engaging someone else who was licensed in any losses they could demonstrate from that but i do not believe that they would be entitled for example to a specific performance process is a very elaborate process takes several months requires a submittal of but a great deal of information including financial information by the applicant and an analysis of staff and includes a determination not only that the individual may be in minority or a woman in the business but that their annual income for the previous three years does not average more than a certain threshold level because the intention of the statute is to benefit disadvantage businesses not available to the more profitable or the more successful businesses out there you have to be under a certain radar screen even to qualify and so there's a great deal of examination goes in to determine that that's the case and somebody is not playing games with a whether hypothetically he could have qualified some days something we can guess on but in terms of deciding this case he was not certified in so with a record before the court at the time that it made this decision in  primarily because of walker's lack of legal ability to enter into the contract it would be an illegal contract secondly as we discussed in our papers in our answering  in the terms of that written agreement so under no scenario would mr walker be able to establish a valid in a forcible contract with british pacific herden used to prove such a contract he cannot do so therefore it's second claim for relief for breach of contract must fall and third claim for interference with a contract depends on that as well and i must fail as well later which i think is material directly material to this issue s n s was certified as at all relevant times which are all times in which it asserts it was a third party beneficiary of the contract between charlie walker and b p and that's understood in the record additionally fuel the dawes tells us that as the brokerage case tells us that even if you don't have a license at the time you enter into the contract if you can get that license before you perform those services the contract is not illegal here charlie walker did not have a license at the time that he entered into the agreement with b hanson does not have a license hanson uses brokers that do not have licenses hansen uses truckers that do not have licenses let's not forget that the lease require sixty percent local trucking not a hundred percent times for ginia testified harmon and she's the one who knows she heads up the commission she testified that that's good enough and that as long as that contract in existence and us could have performed it which under the i think there's twenty five years if you take all the extensions i'm not asserting that that's correct that's just my memory it's a long term so damages would be certainly relevant on your question your honor pages three ninety nine and four hundred of the record are charlie walker's deposition testimony and the topic that's going on here is the question of whether british threatened him in some way and he just talks about the money says no no they won't give me the thirty three thousand dollars unless i wrote a letter just claiming that i had the agreement which isn't in print well is referred to in print he goes on to testify to this question so are you saying that they told you made some statement to you about not getting the trucking after march twenty third answer i don't know it came up in conversation during the time this letter was made they got i'm happy that's my letter we had made an agreement with s n s we could have been charlie walker could have been british pacific and they had made an agreement with and they had made an agreement with us and us and then they decided that it would be easier to deal with me than it would s m s and they said we'll do the same thing except we'd rather just deal with you we don't want to deal with us and yes i said why don't you deal with us in the us they said we just don't want to deal with them it's easier to do business with you and i said well i'm still going to need them you know i'm going to still need them and there's no way for me to have a job that's going to take thirty forty trucks a day i've still got to go to them and then there's more testimony now if you add that your hon discussions and at the time charlie walker told them i will need s n s that mr chambers on behalf of british pacific knew that if he agreed with mr walker that it was going to benefit assets and that he intended to do so so that he could satisfy his own completely acknowledge this is not going to be an easy case if we're given the right to go forward third party beneficiary under an oral contract modifying a written contract everything is stacked up against us from the get go that doesn't mean however th judgment the order granting summary judgment is right just because it burdens the trial court and perhaps the judge doesn't even want this case in her court and i respect that that's not an issue that's not be forced the question is whether the facts