well go on to the next case on the calendar which is seventeen dash five five six four two lamps first says i don't know how to pronounce this one either science that maybe you can correct me when when you get to the microphone corporation and the third party defendant victor c i also had a long standing relationship over twenty years and we were essentially best friends until this dispute yet when my client contract well we point to one of the existing written contract that was in place and also the hundred thousand minor senators one dated ninety six some one twenty twelve or something like that is their right that's right ninety six agreement well i don't have the complaint in front of me but i don't well i've read it and it's not there ok but the other problem is on page ten actually it's excerpt at ten the district court found he started had been a million to two to refer to this one nine hundred ninety six agreement the court went on to explain why no reasonable juror could rely upon it you want to do you want to help pick it up right there i will first of all it's their motion for summary judgment it's their burden to prove and the evidence that they used to prove that there was not a contract was the complaint by muscle and you can't bootstrap mere allegations in a my understanding of the different agreements were is that as economic factors changed and circumstances change that they renewed and entered into new agreements between the reasoning is that it was not a possible allegation because if they had an oral agreement or for that matter a written agreement from one nine hundred ninety six that was supposed to be in perpetuity why would there have been any reason to enter into substance of agreements and that's what i'm well i think that the answer is because at some point and it's in my client's declaration masa mo comes to them and wants to renegotiate the deal wants to take back part of asia take back some of the countries that were granted to my client and is also demanding payment so that's why they entered into other agreements but if you just look at the hundred thousand dollars payment which my client side a declaration to also attaching the wire transfer receipt you'll see that my client is in the goetia asians with while the victor c r and pro market are in negotiations and end up signing a deal with them right then you can in negotiations being the operative part of that sentence right well we're going to get it seems to me that your complaint alleges there were these ongoing negotiations and then a draft contract showed up and it didn't reflect at all the parties agreement and that sounds to me like a contract that didn't happen didn't ever really form so what is your response like well in our brief we talk about the existence of an oral agreement being fully enforceable and then if all that is left to do is to put the the oral agreement between the parties left nothing to be done other than sign the writing and to pay over the initial payment the code sections fifty fifty and fifty sixty five the civil code constitute a valid and payment that there is a prospective economic benefit the two aren't engaged in negotiations and during when the parties are engaged in negotiations you can't swoop in and we've been privy to insider information and cut him out of the deal and that's what happened here when they come to that microphone they're going to say what they said in their brief which is that that hundred thousand dollars payment with payment if there was an outstanding obligation for prior infringement on it speak to that and well we dispute that and that's another disputed fact that needs to go to a jury and not be decided by the court and that's the whole point of summary judgment is if you have disputed facts that go to the jury the jury has to weigh those wrote we agree with that and so that's our main pitch is that the evidence that they use they didn't prove their case the evidence they used is a complaint with  allegations that weren't proven my client ends up settling with maslow has a confidentiality agreement in place and that they didn't prove their case for summary judgment the burden wasn't on us the burden was on them and the court i can't see it anywhere until the declaration filed in opposition to the summary judgment motion i think that's the first time it makes an appearance i think that's what the district  what that the court should have considered that as as as as another indication of the relationship and the contractual obligations between my client and mosse about also going back to my understanding of your answer to judge hawkins as first question was yes my claims depend upon the existence of a valid contract so i'm trying to figure out whether or not you think by by raising it in opposition to their summary judgment motion that your client did enough to defeat the existence of that first contract we do believe so we want to believe so and we also believe that moreover that the evidence of the oral contract is crystal clear you've got one hundred thousand dollars payment so even if we were to lose one the one to the moving party has presented its case and presented evidence then obviously the burden is on the opposing party to present specific fact showing that there is a genuine issue for a trial they haven't done that their entire contention is that there was this dream in one thousand nine hundred ninety eight that nobody can find  any documents for you that just sort of appeared that was obviously if it existed are gone are obvious we've replaced by the subsequent written agreements that were entered into between the parties and that the one hundred thousand dollar payment somehow cemented this alleged oral agreement but the facts are to the contrary the facts are that we don't make finding what are the undisputed fact what is stronger argument write history because there's no contest contest that one hundred thousand dollars payment was made and his theory is that there was a binding oral agreement and then it was only when opposing party went to memorialize it that it got wobbly so why does he not have an enforceable oral contract because your honor when there was a will in the writing went that if there was an and it was a different terms and there was never a meeting of the mom well he says the that's the whole point he says there was a meeting of the minds on the oral contract and that in bad faith that's the implied then bad faith that it came back and more realized differently than what the parties that already agreed to so so what is your defense to the formation of that oral contract please it  is that there could not have been an oral contract number one and i do believe in the timing is important here i think at the time that they were talking about that that the  filed and so if you have this lawsuit file that alleged fraud between the parties a i'm going fraud for over twenty years that for them to now come back and say but let me get let me answer your question because i think it's important in the history of this is where in the two thousand where they had all these written agreements you now have what purports to be some negotiations going on and i get back to that if the parties are memorializing this oral agreement in writing and they can't reach terms of of it in the writing and there can't be an oral agreement because there was no meaning in the minds there couldn't possibly have been and that's the only undisputed evidence that there is for counsel to say oh we have an oral agreement and to have what he has call i sit in a declaration on that point doesn't weigh against the fact that there was an admission that there was a so he's talking about the two thousand and twelve right is there sufficient information in that declaration to a stablish a contract i don't believe so your honor and again i get back to the that take it out of the statute of frauds and i hate to keep repeating myself i don't think the end the answer to that is no thank you of course because if there's an oral agreement i get back to director of the labs corp limbus is a ass any of the other contracts in addition he outlines the whole history of the dealings with moscow and his original investment of one point four through his company's payment to maslow's also in progress twenty four he outlines the payment of the hundred thousand dollars they come back again to the fact that there's a dispute there's a lawsuit filed and the court cannot take that as gospel as or as a stablished thoughts assume that there are sufficient information in harry's declaration say that's that's correct and he also above that talks about at the time the moscow company was planning an i p o on the new york stock exchange and in order to improve its liquidity and other strategic reasons the company entered into a series  they talk about soul supply and paragraph turn lines twenty six through twenty eight i'm trying to find