a prospective employment arrangement constitutes a five year employment contract and there are a couple of sections that that determine answer to that question the district court ruled as a matter of law the document the offer letter was not a contract and we believe that that was erroneous that the st provision as it is anticipated that your employment with the company will be for a minimum period of five years to and so i can only ask how anybody would feel receiving such an offer letter and what does what does what's the plain meaning anticipated anticipation well so so there really isn't a plain meaning if you mean a meaning in every particular case it is but my question is why does the every day plain meaning of the war anticipate look forward to as in this context look i look forward to that as we look forward to does that constitute a binding contract for a period of five years well  i believe it does your honor i believe in the context the context of an agreement always the most significant way to determine what it means and in this particular case you have one about what about the context of the other language and the terminations well so i believe the the anticipated language is clear or at least and big us as to whether it your employment for any reason the nd sentence says that that the company will be entitled to terminate your employment for any reason other than cause by providing you with such minimum notice as required by law and so so the position of the other side is both of those provisions allow it to terminate hodge's employment for any reason at all so if their insurer any long is there any law that requires a minimum period of notice applicable to this case well so so it depends on whether or not this is a five year contract because of it because if it is a five year contract then the applicable law would require five years of notice or will have to put your your ally only on the anticipation languages nothing else in the law that would require any kind of notice is that provisions do the same thing and what why would we have to says that do the same thing i thought their answer was that they operate in a number of jurisdictions and that if there is a minimum notice required in some jurisdiction provide it i thought that was their answer and your honor i would say that that that this is boilerplate language that this is not language specific to this arrangement the language that is specific to the arrangement is in the  provision i talked about that the employment was and intice appended to last five years so the law is the specific controls over the general and discovery may establish that that that we are you had anticipated as we say in our brief can mean many different things it is something called a polish semes word which means it has many meanings and can have many meanings and that means as a matter of law it doesn't have a clear meaning here and so if it doesn't have a clear meaning here then we should be entitled to discovery as to what everybody thought this meant that is just it it i complaint also confirms this complaint and a breach of contract claim is reduced to a single able th two thousand eight hundred offer letter i submit that when you read the document its entirety it is claimed affirmed i think it's also important to put in context this agreement in the sense that it's not that we're looking at an offer letter in a vacuum we're looking at it against the yorks at will employment doctrine so you know perhaps there's some potential disagreements on the level of certainty you're talking about when you use the word and to support it the bottom line though is is that it doesn't cross the line to be coming definite and i think the airplanes isn't the nd sentence arguably superfluous i mean that's the argument it your honor i understand that's the argument i completely disagree you know the argument is it rests on this notion about whether there are jurisdictions that in poll some kind of minimum notice requirement is that the reason for this sentence or that language absolutely  and i would wonder then if counsel is correct what is the purpose of this language it is anticipated that your employment with the company will be for a minimum of five years write it it either a suggestion about what you can expect if you sign the offer letter or it is a trick who would read this sentence as a recipient of this offer letter and ever assume that they weren't being offered five years of employment and then do it to you base if you get past that and you move to the the  minimum notice as required by law so what law right i mean that this is a spanish company and the allegation is that they were relying upon a provision that applies to these agreements that is in contradiction to the five year employment term and for that reason we respectfully request that dismissal him as a matter of law was not right and we should be