yes, well, er I follow that, but I'm sorry I put it rather badly Mr  forgive me, part of your defence against the claim by  er relates to erm these agreements, you must say that these agreements erm because they are of the standard form are anti competitive and therefore they or part of them are void, erm building on that presumably your defence says or employs er that because erm, you know there void, I dunno perhaps you can tell me this erm, all, all the er all parts of the void, all the power of the agent, the agreements with regard to premium trust funds and the like, er are also unenforceable as between er the erm name and his er members agent, erm and in consequence of that you say, as I understand it, er that that is, all that cause be lost which you can neither set up as a defence to  claim under the central bi-law or at least as a set up or counterclaim, I just wanted to explore this aspect of it, erm, as to the consequences of your plea, does it mean that clause nine is put on one side wholly or to an extent in the latter case to what extent?