that ok thank you thank you the court below made a procedural error that this court must reverse the trial court granted summary judgment for the real estate broker defendants where there were genuine issues material fact and that the court will also resolve inferences presented by the facts in favor of the moving defendants instead of in favor of the plaintiffs opposing the is just not there in this case the evidence show that the real estate brokers made misrepresentations about this property to the prospective purchaser time etc and the facts surrounding  his level of sophistication and whether he relied on the misrepresentations are not relevant to that claim likewise the real estate licensing act which requires the broker to pay to be  with a customer like this on it doesn't matter how sophisticated the customer is if the broker is not honest so i don't think it's material there there is a chance that his level of sophistication could be immaterial to the common law fraud claim and to the common law negligent misrepresentation claim and it was up to the fact finder i believe to to measure how much sophistication he had and to what extent  that allowed him to rely on after rely on the things he was hearing from this broker about the about the property and of suitability for the exact kind of development that he had in mind making up the zoning when the defendant made up the think that the trial court should not have predicted the outcome of the trial at the summary judgment stage but instead should have perceived that these and the other factual questions  that question one of them is that she just decided the facts as to the reasonable basis of the reliance and the causation and second as i mentioned earlier she added an element of reasonable reliance to the consumer product claim which isn't there and to the real estate licensing and it isn't there evidence supporting all the elements of those test very claims was present i'm and i as i said before i recognize that reliance was material to the common law fraud claim and to the negligent misrepresentation claim but it was not to the consumer product and it was not material to the real estate license again whether the reliance cause the ultimate harm is another factor  that should not should not have been decided as a matter of law should have been submitted to the fact finder and i think this is a basic civil procedure case in that regard where  shop closed if it had been replaced immediately by another grocery store there is a possibility that that one could have been grandfathered but i i don't know that for but the listing itself said that it was perfect for effect of this information is believed to be accurate and and on this record i think we can show that that that too was a misrepresentation because i don't think that the broker defendants believed their made up  zoning ation to be accurate and i do think it's fairly inferrable from the evidence that the broker defendants knew they had a white elephant on their hands that they couldn't sell because you could not get a new grocery store in there to replace the old stop and shop that  closed many years before and that's why it sat on the market for so long so i i think that this dependence it was a low grade no doubt about that hard to believe you can't know that if if you've ever been there so you have to go through and there's only ordinance to finally come to that conclusion and and we contend that's not something that the law to require of a lay purchaser who is reasonably relying on a real estate professional who should know what he's talking about is there any relevance to the fact that the purchase contract provided for due diligence attorney review that you have any relevance to any of the issues y judgment on the record that was before the graph at the time she ruled i'm the off chance of the case get sent back for trial i can you address the issue of the late disclosure of the damage trial certain documents relevant to the damages because they were disclosed only sixty days before trial should be allowed to be reconsidered be the basis of the tropics ruling on that of the trial court's discretion to discovery question but i have to point out in the same context these defendants have had an extra year and more to evaluate that evidence and the basis and justification for ruling which i think was questionable but i recognize it is a matter of discretion i think i'm dreaming and the trial court ought to be asked to reconsider that ruling and to allow that evidence to be introduced at trial because the discretion which i think we all recognize why it's what i think is appropriate for this court to do is to remind the court on remand that property you still have discretion over matters of discovery you to reconsider the basis that the defendants were deprived of adequate time to deal with this evidence before trial in the light of the fact that the defendants have now had extra time to a addressed is that will face a lot of the case arguments after e mans when i do ask for the ruling to be reconsidered i'm so i think it's i think and for that reason it was necessary opine about what the what the next trial judge is free to do regarding that when it be unfair to be able to use the effect of an appeal  defendants was that they did not have enough time to analyze and deal with this evidence their record now shows that the defendants have had plenty of time to deal with and analyze this evidence and and so that alone would not be a sound basis to prevent us out of the matter i don't motion and limit you'd be in a different situation if the case is gone to trial and you were appealing the court's ruling and also appealing the court's decision to not to bar you from bringing up that damage i think it was yeah depending on what would have happened at that trial we would have had a tougher case because of the abuse of discretion stand by and i just i need to be upfront about it so if you had lost the case of the argument in this country i mean if there are other questions i'd like to address in our otherwise i may be seated and preserve what a couple of minutes i a question of fact existing zoning of the property was and always has been and is today a matter of public record what did your client write down or put down on the listing was that a fact or was that a that is a matter of public record the thing that he made up i don't believe he made it up i believe the testimony of the record indicated that he didn't wasn't familiar with and just added something to it what the what the record indicated was that he pulled the yet summary judgment in your favor even though your client put down fallacious information making up information about this seminal issue in this entire dispute whether or not the song would be appropriate for the uses that he had that both the one and the rule and three are incorrect they were incorrect at the time the purchased the property was purchased it was in fact your tent but again that is why there is well settled law that you cannot be helped liable for misrepresentations of a matter of just like this you see it in the city of aurora versus green matter the hemings matter those are cases in which so many existing zoning of a property which is what we have here was found to be a matter of public record here you say there was no way to tell because we're talking about the units that are being sold here below the building the case and there was no way to does this law allow you to make it up when you don't know what it is because there's no way to tell again the law provide that's why we have this carve out that's why you have the safety of the matter bob first as a matter of fact the issue being that there's people may make mistakes ten rather than it was no way to tell but it s the problem with this case vs the cases you realize is that i don't believe so because again what mr for which new and what he put down is not relevant in the analysis of whether or not lease that was a grocer and they even sell refrigerate he pointed out the refrigerators refrigeration that there are still down there in the layout and all the stuff he knew exactly what it was going to be used for and if it was so simple as you say then you're losing them right well no because what the consumer product and where reliance comes into play and again whether or not the courts lower courts reasoning whether or not this court were to agree with that that's not what's on issue here this is you're looking at the ultimate judgment so what the court's looking at is there's this discussion about whether or not you're entitled to rely on misrepresentations of law and that's where it comes into play from a consumer fraud standpoint because you're not entitled to rely on misrepresentations of law they're not material facts which is a fireman under consumer thought so the issue becomes well when you're talking about when you're talking about reliance that goes reasonable reliance or justified reliance goes to the consumer excuse me the common law fraud and the negligent misrepresentation i would agree with that there is this idea of reliance he didn't even though he made up this sony and even though he said in the listing this is perfect for a grocery store and even though it turned out that that wasn't true and even though he said oh i can't even figure it out all of their act doesn't indicate that look at what the listing itself said and it's pacifically says to use your due diligence that the information is not guaranteed and that again is why when you're talking about a matter of pure law which is the existing zoning of a property you're not entitled to rely on so you agree there's a like it's a misrepresentation but it's not one of a material fact it's why we both agree with you in the theory it was everything no i don't believe so i believe the court further when you look at the analysis on reasonable reliance when you if you get there which i not the first time that he's purchased a commercial building he's testified in the past when he has purchased commercial buildings he hires an attorney to check the zoning for a just what do you have to prove that this is the first time your client lied about what the zoning is in dispute horowitz to know but again it doesn't matter because what mr gore which knew and what he could ascertain does not impact or change the fact the very fact that zoning is a matter of law someone's ignorance of the law does not excuse someone else from know i disagree with that either way under you want if it was a veiled bill for commercial use again this was the former staff a chap when they when he did make that up when they went there the grocery cases were still there's operated as a stop and shop this property was on really all you're talking about there are stacks facts facts where you're saying according to the matter of law so you're you've got facts on one side and then you have fiction and the other in the fiction here comes your client and you've got somebody judgment i don't see any facts there issue enough itself is a matter of law what property is zoned is a matter of law that is publicly available even his own witnesses says let's just best for we're done with this case say for example we say know you brokers you can't just make up selling you have to be more pay more attention to it and you certainly can't and zoning that doesn't exist and we say that into the future brokers would sanction the motion to bar was brought under two nineteen which is a discovery sanction the standard here to be applied is a piece of discretion and the plaintiffs have offered no reason why the trial court abused its discretion in barring damage evidence as to damages they came within less than sixty days of trial and to somehow suggest that by reasons of the appeal that my clients have since had plenty of time since they were granted summary judgment to go into further delve into those documents just a wise existing case law and common law and common sense frankly and we're certainly not going to go ahead and gauge in discovery on a case in which we've been granted summary judgment all this time and say well now if you get sent back oh well you that stuff can come in because we weren't prejudiced by it the discovery was closed at the time that the documents were submitted we were less than sixty days out from friday when they left fifty eight so two i think it was fifteen we've been asking for information regarding damages from day one and the information that was provided wasn't information that was reset this was assessment information information that would have been in plaintiff's control well before the fifty eight days before trial that part of the services of a realtor to a client is to check this on the property and also to determine the highest and best use but i don't think he's got a legal obligation to do that but he does have a legal obligation not to make stuff up and the other point i want to address is that the defense relies on what i think is a false dichotomy between matters of law and matters of fact what the broker misrepresented to this customer was not her matter of law and i want to call attention to some of the cases we've already cited like gilmore where what the rover said was this place is good for a dentist i think that's quite a bit like what this one said where he said is perfect for a grocery store that was an actionable misrepresentation i'm purpose versus collapse the broker said getting a building permit is going to be no problem one could make the argument that that is infringing on the practice of law and the administrative process of applying for a building permit and opining on how that's going to turn out it was an actionable misrepresentation in the fi building but only four of them were legal and that representation was an actionable misrepresentation of that and that's why i'm i in this case when you look at the whole picture of what the broker knew about the property what he knew about the customer and the customer's intentions all needs to go into the analysis of what he had a right to say and then thinking we will take the matter under advisement and point of order your trip briefing terrific advocacy on both sides it's great to see people at the right level of the profession doing their job for their clients we really appreciate it