ecllc and/or david denison dd. doesn't the and/or mean that ec was capable in and of itselfc a. doesn't the and/or mean that ec was capable in and of itselfec lc and/or david denison dd. doesn't the and/or mean that ec was capable in and of itselflc . doesn't the and/or mean that ec was capable in and of itself at settles this action? >> no, because and/or is a ternlg of art in the legal profession and under california law, it is found to be a plural use of the term. it is in the conjunction difference. furthermore, if you look at paragraph 8.6 of the agreement, it specifies if the agreement is not signed by all parties, it is invalid. >> therefore i come back to where i began which is shouldn't she refuse to have taken the 130 k until there was full execution? >> well, i mean that certainly was an option. that is not what happened. and so we look at where we stand now and where we stand now is that we've got an agreement that was never signed by all parties