He can't keep accents with the professor Doc Johnson's action, target is not presented any time, except for the confidential memo, but reports to be an actual offer of sale, so that we can closely examine the language of the offer itself as required by the score to do one. We think the group one requirement is sensible, because without examining the language of the book, hopefully you can't tell whether you'll represent a definite commercial level of sale. As this court said in the report, in any given circumstance it can be difficult to tell who the offer is, or whether a proposal or set of interactions constitutes a definite offer, a proposal promoting a product might be nothing more than an invitation for offers, while responding to such an invitation may itself be an offer. That's why it's important to closely examine the proposal itself, the language that we've posted. If we look at the NX page 196, there seems to be a order form for roundabout seats sent out to the customer's office. That is the confidential memo, and why isn't that offer free? It's not an offer for sale because it is not from set between separate entities. It's not between separate entities. The center of it. What's that being called? Well that means the center of the memo, Stanford, is sending it to its own organization, its own maybe news organization. That's an order for an offer to be a commercial level offer of sale that has to be an offer between separate entities, in which it can be a case, the state set quite clearly. That's our contention that the only document that we have, and you're right, pointing out the confidential memo, that this is the only documents presented that actually reports being offered sale. What our contention is is that we recently attended a sales meeting over this weekend, some developments, the seats, so on and so forth. What's the sales meeting? Well the sales meeting was a sales meeting, the Britax Hall, the Stanford Distributing Company, attended that meeting
. Stanford Distributing Company is a perspective, was a perspective purchaser of these car seats on behalf of its baby news organization, and that brings us to the issue. What is that? The fact that we have a lot of evidence of an offer for sale at the sales meeting, because it's not between separate entities. This is merely a communication, a learning where Stanford, they're not coming to a statement, something I didn't even know in the speech, Stanford talks to the dealers, he's not talking to us. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no author of sale made by great tax to Stanford there's, there's no, well there's no, well, you're not going to have to do it but I thought that was not documents but I thought it was testimonial that that's what happened to me actually um what I... there's nothing. There's nothing... it's partly, I just wanted to show that I can't change it. There's nothing that allows us to examine any kind of from poor day offer from the great tax to Stanford
. Nothing. What do you mean nothing to allow us to do? To examine the language of the proposal itself as requiring a group of. But there was evidence that a proposal was made from right tax to Stanford, right? But there's no evidence that that proposal rises to the level of a commercial definite commercial level offered. Say it. Well, not, not, they're, well, I can't say because there's no evidence of it. There's no, not all, not all interactions between companies and even offers rise to the level of a commercial level offered sale. Only offers which are definite and that by mere acceptance and nothing more create, can create a binding contract. Only they constitute definite commercial level offer sale. And no such evidence was presented. What do we have in A63634, 637, 639 that list around about? Let's see. I'm sure. Activities here
. Orcats, etc. Yes, but this material does not meet the high standard of proof required a group one. There's no pretty sales order. I, to tell you the truth, there's nothing surrounding these documents to explain to what they are. You don't know whether they're binding offers. You have to look at the situation here. I mean, we see it's not even met in manufacture. And so these may indicate, could very well indicate preliminary indications of interest from customers that weren't binding commercial level offers of sale. But that's our point. This material does not rise to level proof required in group one. But you actually have to look at the language of the offers themselves. We don't have any of the order forms here
. We don't have any of the purchase orders or order forms. So let's go to someplace else. Let's go to the declaration of Roger O'Callion. Yes, I understand for a describing corporation. And he's saying such things is on August 8th, 9th, I attended a BrinTech sales meeting. I received copies of the sales meeting. It was also agreed the roundabout was ready for sale. Very shortly after that, I prepared sales offer. He's talking about the confidential memo. He has not mentioned anything about any kind of binding commercial level arrangement between BrinTech's and the Stanford. When he's saying, you're in the air. You're going to have to be able to just to understand that
. But it has to be, it can't be just any offer. It has to be a significant key point here then. This offer to sell the roundabout seat, including the wholesale price, $120, suggested retail price, $99. Minimum order, six per store, color, burgundy, shipping terms, estimated ship date, requirement. Do I need to go further? Well, here's what I'd say about that. We're talking about the confidential memo stand that we just covered. The year on it pointed out in the appendix. The S-R? Yes. But he's saying there's an offer to sell when he's giving prices and giving distribution times and receiving dates. And it's all all the keys he's talking about. He has the claim features. It is a communication from Stanford to its own baby news organization
. That's what's represented by the confidential memo. That's what he's talking about. He's not talking about anything different. Just a confidential memo. What is that statement saying? I'm a france. The mayor of the sort of form of the West Coast retail was on top of a store. One came on the ship. Those are the baby news stores. Every single one of those retailers that was malpid, it was backstool, was a baby news store. And Stanford does business as baby news. But Stanford's getting this offer from Brintax, right? A separate party is making this offer to their to sell the product. Isn't the product with the claim feature on sale? No, because no, why not? Because the only piece of evidence where you can actually look at it and see whether it's a confidential memo that your honor is pointed out
. We've got this declaration that says he's getting the sales price given to him by Brintax in early August. Right, am I misreading it? No. But what he's talking about is the confidential memo. He's not talking about anything different. And our argument is that the confidential memo, although he's talking about what was agreed to in August, $8.9 million. I was also agreed that the sale meeting around about was ready for sale. I prepared a sale's offer to come out. I taxed this offer. I believe in the exceeding a copy of the sales offer. Right. Which adults exactly have come to come to you in the sales offer and order at order for him
. But our advantage is it's on sale. Are there any other things on sale? No, our point is that that confidential memo is not between separate entities. There's a genuine issue of fact on this that was in the discussion. The confidential memo doesn't reflect the offer that Brintax may get the August 8.9 million. Our contention is that the confidential memo is an author. Is an author. The advantage of my question, my question is, is your contention that the confidential memo is not an offer for sale because it doesn't accurately embody the terms that Brintax announced that the August 8.9 million. No, our argument is different. Argument is that it is not an offer for sale. It is not a firm commercial level offer for sale because it's not between separate entities
. The confidential memo is simply, but if the confidential memo embodies the offer that was made at the meeting, why is it an evidence of an offer for sale that was made at the meeting? Is your point that I want to understand it? Is your point that there was an offer of sale made at the meeting between Brintax and Amher? Okay. Our argument is not all interactions and offers are rise to the level of firm commercial level offers of sale. That's perfectly clear, but the question is, what happened in August 8.9 meeting constitute an offer for sale? There's an after date that he or she was pointing out to you what happened at the meeting and then it's tampered in bodies of this information in this confidential memo that looks like an offer for sale as all the terms do. From who you're putting it? That from Brintax to Brintax, just the Amher. You didn't do any of that to the new one. Well, actually, no, because there's an issue, an important issue of fact here that you haven't been dealing with was Stanford in its dealings with Brintax, acting as a prospective purchaser of these seats, in other words, acting in to buy them on behalf of its being news organization, or was Stanford merely an agent in Brintax? Now, we contend that and there's evidence in the property of the offer is sale included the price. There's an offer to sell. These things aren't being given to Stanford, to be given to its retail outlets. It's a sale of a transaction. But the point is, as I was saying, there's a genuine issue of fact as to whether Stanford was nearly acting as a sales agent for Brintax, or whether it was buying seats. The point is, the seats on sale
. In other words, the relationship between the parties becomes, I think, our confusion is the statute makes that somewhat irrelevant as long as the product and body and the claim invention was on sale to anyone. But I think you could probably even put it on sale within your own organization. Actually, to your own employees, that might be true, but the offer has to be between separate entities in order to be a commercial level author of sale. If you look at them in a concrete, the Brintax is separate from the ultimate dealers, the recipients of the company are going to try. Yes. But the offer is between Stanford and its baby new stores. So it's on sale. No, because Stanford is on sale. The new stores are the same organization. And they have put it on sale to the local distributor. They're the same organization. It's a collective buying organization. What Stanford was doing in the Confedential Memories was nearly a learning, its organization to collect the buying opportunity. What was that? The evidence that Stanford was acting on the head, and it was acting as a prospective purchaser. And on behalf of its baby new stores, if you look at our brief in page, let's see, there's quite a bit of evidence on that. If you look at our brief, by the way, the declaration of Mr. O'Call again calls Stanford an independent distributor on a subsidiary of Brighton. And that's what the point is. That's what the point is. The name of the head in terms of the issue of fact here, there's plenty of evidence in the record that Stanford was a prospective purchaser, not an agent of Brighton. An independent distributor of a prospective purchaser of NCES. Let's hear from Mr. Adams. Mr
. What Stanford was doing in the Confedential Memories was nearly a learning, its organization to collect the buying opportunity. What was that? The evidence that Stanford was acting on the head, and it was acting as a prospective purchaser. And on behalf of its baby new stores, if you look at our brief in page, let's see, there's quite a bit of evidence on that. If you look at our brief, by the way, the declaration of Mr. O'Call again calls Stanford an independent distributor on a subsidiary of Brighton. And that's what the point is. That's what the point is. The name of the head in terms of the issue of fact here, there's plenty of evidence in the record that Stanford was a prospective purchaser, not an agent of Brighton. An independent distributor of a prospective purchaser of NCES. Let's hear from Mr. Adams. Mr. O'Call, what's your name? I'm Dr. O'Call. I'm Dr. O'Call. Okay, we've got Mr. Galbra back to you and it's a visual final time, so if you could give Mr. Adams an additional tool, should he make an use it? Make a use it for it. Let's turn first to Judge Barrett's opinion on page 9, appendix 9. He addresses this issue of buying organization. Brighton Ideas has ever since they saw this memo number 61, has tried to shoehorn Stanford and its independent retailers into the same shoe. This same argument was made in front of Dr. O'Call
. O'Call, what's your name? I'm Dr. O'Call. I'm Dr. O'Call. Okay, we've got Mr. Galbra back to you and it's a visual final time, so if you could give Mr. Adams an additional tool, should he make an use it? Make a use it for it. Let's turn first to Judge Barrett's opinion on page 9, appendix 9. He addresses this issue of buying organization. Brighton Ideas has ever since they saw this memo number 61, has tried to shoehorn Stanford and its independent retailers into the same shoe. This same argument was made in front of Dr. O'Call. If you're honest, we'll look at page 9, that argument is demolished by reference to Mr. O'Call, and it was the second declaration, which appears at page 409 of the appendix. And he addresses this issue of course, right? He says that these distributors, these retailers, are not associated or affiliated with Stanford. They're not owned. They're independent, operated retail stores. And it's all set out on page 9 of Judge Garbos' opinion. In fact, Judge Garbos points out that the only evidence that Brighton Ideas offered on this whole theory was some printouts from a 2006 website, reporting to establish material issues of fact, regarding something that happened in 1997, and he closes with a statement from those printouts, which says the Bayon News printouts states that Bayon News stores are locally owned and operated. It's a red hearing. And the record of this answer is actually quite clear about what happened. There is simply another issue of fact regarding the fact that Mr. O'Call had sent out this memo on April 1, August 12th, and that long before the critical day orders were coming in, was Stanford an agent of Brighton. Stanford was an agent of Brighton, said it was offered to go out and was authorized
. If you're honest, we'll look at page 9, that argument is demolished by reference to Mr. O'Call, and it was the second declaration, which appears at page 409 of the appendix. And he addresses this issue of course, right? He says that these distributors, these retailers, are not associated or affiliated with Stanford. They're not owned. They're independent, operated retail stores. And it's all set out on page 9 of Judge Garbos' opinion. In fact, Judge Garbos points out that the only evidence that Brighton Ideas offered on this whole theory was some printouts from a 2006 website, reporting to establish material issues of fact, regarding something that happened in 1997, and he closes with a statement from those printouts, which says the Bayon News printouts states that Bayon News stores are locally owned and operated. It's a red hearing. And the record of this answer is actually quite clear about what happened. There is simply another issue of fact regarding the fact that Mr. O'Call had sent out this memo on April 1, August 12th, and that long before the critical day orders were coming in, was Stanford an agent of Brighton. Stanford was an agent of Brighton, said it was offered to go out and was authorized. I look where does the record show that it is an agent of Brighton? Well, Mr. O'Call, he refers to Stanford as an authorized agent, an authorized distributor of Brighton. And I think the genre mentioned three months ago, it doesn't matter what the label is, the fact that it's the other, I understand the other, but it doesn't matter. I'm just wondering where does the record tell me? Is there an answer to that, but it says that Stanford's an agent of Brighton? The account hand declaration states that that the record Stanford is an authorized sales representative of Brighton, along with the other attendees at the meeting. I think this is an appropriate time to mention Mr. Fritz. Brighton doesn't talk much about Mr. Fritz. Mr. Fritz was also at the sales meeting, totally unrelated to Stanford in any way, shape before it lives in the Midwest. He also says that shortly after the same sales meeting, he can now, and started calling on his customers, offering the exact same round of mouth SQL sale, and that he tender acceptances back to Brighton's patents before the product would be paid. Now, if you look at, if you look at Brighton, what is that? That is in the appendix at the appendix 204
. I look where does the record show that it is an agent of Brighton? Well, Mr. O'Call, he refers to Stanford as an authorized agent, an authorized distributor of Brighton. And I think the genre mentioned three months ago, it doesn't matter what the label is, the fact that it's the other, I understand the other, but it doesn't matter. I'm just wondering where does the record tell me? Is there an answer to that, but it says that Stanford's an agent of Brighton? The account hand declaration states that that the record Stanford is an authorized sales representative of Brighton, along with the other attendees at the meeting. I think this is an appropriate time to mention Mr. Fritz. Brighton doesn't talk much about Mr. Fritz. Mr. Fritz was also at the sales meeting, totally unrelated to Stanford in any way, shape before it lives in the Midwest. He also says that shortly after the same sales meeting, he can now, and started calling on his customers, offering the exact same round of mouth SQL sale, and that he tender acceptances back to Brighton's patents before the product would be paid. Now, if you look at, if you look at Brighton, what is that? That is in the appendix at the appendix 204. I think this paragraph says your honor. I see. You may proceed. Just finally, Your Honor, I really think that we all read the briefs, and I think every poll's together pretty well. I think it's clearly the judge, Gervis, getting rid of the points. I would just point forward to statement manual page six of Brighton's patents. I did his own brief where they say that Target has presented a Brighton's Open Order and Sales Report. This is one of the peers on Appendix 639, which I mentioned earlier, showing August 1997 orders. Well, that statement is absolutely true. And it also answers the question of where the offers made firm commercial offers. How could there possibly be 179 open orders as of August 27, 1997, if they had never been a commercial offer made? That's the evidence. It is really, you don't need to go any further
. I think this paragraph says your honor. I see. You may proceed. Just finally, Your Honor, I really think that we all read the briefs, and I think every poll's together pretty well. I think it's clearly the judge, Gervis, getting rid of the points. I would just point forward to statement manual page six of Brighton's patents. I did his own brief where they say that Target has presented a Brighton's Open Order and Sales Report. This is one of the peers on Appendix 639, which I mentioned earlier, showing August 1997 orders. Well, that statement is absolutely true. And it also answers the question of where the offers made firm commercial offers. How could there possibly be 179 open orders as of August 27, 1997, if they had never been a commercial offer made? That's the evidence. It is really, you don't need to go any further. The past, Brighton is brief, can pay six. And then look at Appendix page six 39. I'll call this all over there. Can you just go over here? Do you have two minutes? Yes. Council for Target admitted that Stanford was an agent of Brighton's just sent it two minutes ago. We disagree with that. We believe that this is an important issue about where in the record is there, any evidence that you put forward to refute quite an amazing amount of evidence that there was some kind of a sales transaction. We've got confidential memos. We've got memos from Fritz and on Callahan. And where is there anything that you can, all I want you to do now is point me to something in this record that refutes all of that. Not your argument. Something in this record that refutes everything so that we can see that there is on the record this beautiful material issue
. The past, Brighton is brief, can pay six. And then look at Appendix page six 39. I'll call this all over there. Can you just go over here? Do you have two minutes? Yes. Council for Target admitted that Stanford was an agent of Brighton's just sent it two minutes ago. We disagree with that. We believe that this is an important issue about where in the record is there, any evidence that you put forward to refute quite an amazing amount of evidence that there was some kind of a sales transaction. We've got confidential memos. We've got memos from Fritz and on Callahan. And where is there anything that you can, all I want you to do now is point me to something in this record that refutes all of that. Not your argument. Something in this record that refutes everything so that we can see that there is on the record this beautiful material issue. Okay. Here's the dispute of material issue. Once again, they maintain the Stanford was Brighton's agent. We maintain that they were prospective purchaser acting for the regularization. A398. In 1997, Stanford Distributed Court was named Independent Third Party Distributed of Brighton's job GR seats. Not an agent, an independent third party Distributed. Same page with your payments. Stanford contracted with Brighton's to produce goods that were resold to retail stores. But yeah, we don't have any contract here that's been presented. In the next page, A400, Brighton's did sell round the belt seats to Stanford. These are all interox, more interrogatory answers
. Okay. Here's the dispute of material issue. Once again, they maintain the Stanford was Brighton's agent. We maintain that they were prospective purchaser acting for the regularization. A398. In 1997, Stanford Distributed Court was named Independent Third Party Distributed of Brighton's job GR seats. Not an agent, an independent third party Distributed. Same page with your payments. Stanford contracted with Brighton's to produce goods that were resold to retail stores. But yeah, we don't have any contract here that's been presented. In the next page, A400, Brighton's did sell round the belt seats to Stanford. These are all interox, more interrogatory answers. Same page further down in the lead. Brighton's agreed to sell a quantity of round the belt seats to Stanford. A405, an offer forwarded by Stanford to his customers. This is the next one. Right. I don't have any from me, but I believe you. Certainly. The A405 to five pages for this year. The price is charged by Brighton's to Stanford for various seating products. Nine years ago, is not presently known except that the price was less than wholesale prices to see resold by Stanford to the tree tablets. Products ordered by Stanford from Brighton's ship to New Order and Croce of Business has inventory permitted and Stanford paid Brighton's on commercially-recible terms. That is not agents
. Same page further down in the lead. Brighton's agreed to sell a quantity of round the belt seats to Stanford. A405, an offer forwarded by Stanford to his customers. This is the next one. Right. I don't have any from me, but I believe you. Certainly. The A405 to five pages for this year. The price is charged by Brighton's to Stanford for various seating products. Nine years ago, is not presently known except that the price was less than wholesale prices to see resold by Stanford to the tree tablets. Products ordered by Stanford from Brighton's ship to New Order and Croce of Business has inventory permitted and Stanford paid Brighton's on commercially-recible terms. That is not agents. That is Stanford buying the product. Well, and here's why it's more. If he was not a Brighton's agent, why doesn't the record fully support the notion that at the August 8th and 9th meeting, the author was made by Brighton's extension? Because not all authors rise. There's just enough, that's just a general statement. There's all sorts of evidence that the word DKL, in terms of safety, discussed at the August 8th and 9th meeting. And you can, for example, on 205, this guy Fritz says that they offered a sell with them in the meeting. There's nothing that we can actually examine the language of the offer itself. All that material, except for the confidential memo, all that material does not rise to the level of proof, the fire of proof bond. Where are the comments Mr. Brown? So some off. If everything except for the confidential matter of it does not rise to level proof, clearly set out proof bond. You can actually look at the offer itself and examine its language closely
. The confidential memo, there is a clear issue of fact that the District Court declared an immaterial saying, hey, now it doesn't matter, well, it doesn't matter. Thank you Mr. Brown. All rise