has to be arbitrated any action can in connection with the contest rules has to be arbitrary because this is an action with respect to the contest rules of their argument is any action that could be brought against someone then he had gotten i understand that point which is it's not an ev you are just not in connection with the contest its cause it is in connection with the conscious was i understood you to be saying you still want him because he's not a signatory and he was not identified as a third party benefi who can enforce the arbitration agreement are you making that argument your argument only that the reason he can't enforce it is soley because this action is not in connection with the for whether we're going to permit i mean it those are two different dispositions right but if you suggest that actually there is room under this agreement for there to be a third party beneficiary it depends on what the evidence shows that's a different outcome for you than if you say no the terms behalf of and ricky martin morales in a previous appeal this court has already decided that all claims relating to touching upon or concerning the contest at issue are to be submitted to arbitration it's determined that the arbitration provision is enforceable against the plaintiffs and also determined and this is not a point that was brought up in plans argument but it's arbitration provision but also when the plaintiffs signed the release and affidavit to which the contest rules were appended he reaffirmed his assent to those contract rules and both of those an arbitration view we also know that he does not have a contract with the party seeking to force arbitration both of those things are true i would say he doesn't have a contra seems to be limited to the permits it refers to neither party being able to do this refers to the parties being able to do that well the only parties to that agreement exclude mr martin  i guess the way that that would be addressed is to say perhaps at the time these contest rules were drafted martin was not a party to it however when he subsequently brought into the scope of the contest and again you've got a provision that talks about all claims relating to the contest irrespective of whether it's between the parties or somebody who is entitle to the benefit of the contest rules by virtue of their inclusion  believe that is what allows for him to invoke the arbitration provision as it relates to any claim pertaining to the contest the side on to the contest rules there is a stated before this court has already determined that those arbitration rules are in force of all against them as a general matter and this goes to the skill question a little bit which is where i was going there in that previous appeal as question is really just baron my my approach was to say if we're talking about the contention that the arbitration provision is not applicable well there already is a term addition from this court that that's something for complaint so i'll just conclude unless there's like has any questions or your honour's have any additional questions by saying that you have an agreement that is broad in scope covering all claims mr martin was an integral part of that contest as well there does need to be some clarity to it there are basically three elements with third party beneficiary contract the first is a valid contract between the parties the second is an intention to benefit the intended third incorporate martin as the beneficiary of the contest rules and again because the contest rules provide so broadly that all claims relating to the contest and the plaintiff submission to the contest which this claim relates to the submission to that cont