mr pompous when i ask a question christian car here how do you pronounce his last name here your honor here yes thank you here here i thank you for that that request to be granted law supports the idea that with that sort of equitable remedy that we should be looking to a nine fifty one as to how nine few one has been applied in the virgin islands and even our case law seems to look at the statute as part of a set of usury laws and and then that nine percent is a cap  in light of that why why would it be error for the district court to use a lower rate if it saw fit to do so well i think it's rather difficult to say any particular person won the appeal one of the findings of the court in the prior addie case was that that neither party had complied with the requirements of the contract that they both breached the contract and that's why the court said ok neither one can enforce it both breached and mr taylor ought to have his money equitably and equitable remedy restored to him in the interim then too as is the cross appellants client oh though mr taylor didn't have use of the money they didn't have used the land so that there was a balancing act would be for them to say yeah in considering the interest the court should keep in mind the fact that that the lesser letter or whatever you call it presented us from making full use of of the property well it didn't matter and that he could not obtain relief for breach of contract yeah but but the the basis for the relief was different because he did breach the contract as an equitable manner that the court decided this thing ought to go back to where it started and mr taylor ought to get his money back but that mr taylor who was equally blamed fall for breaching the contract as the other side was and the relief he obtained was not the relief he originally was was well not what appeared to be the major relief that he was asking for which was which of contract but this isn't the issue whether we are interpreting is statute or the scope of the applicability of that statute that to that is either of those would be a legal question and that would involve plenary review right well i think  by that in terms of the fairness of what his client is receiving prejudgment interest ten years after the fact double the length of time is less than what the district court was prepared to words five years earlier what is your position under the fifth shifting statute of the virgin islands that the district court can deny the prevailing party is attorney's fees i'm without setting forth its findings or rationale  saying because it's the same numerical damage is a word that it doesn't matter with the basis is for imposing that a word how does our case law support that notion claims on both sides and there certainly was was no set determination of what damages ought to be that this was something that we had to very carefully parse out from our review of the case of our determination had there been a breach of contract by whom at what time and and certainly i can't say that we walked out of oral argument the last time saying oh well at least we know what the damages ought to be deposit of the five hundred thousand dollars was that properly released to to the appellants here there was arguments that mr moore should not have permitted that money to be released and that if that had not happened that that would have solved one of the problems in the case and i think that for all the parties involved his actions were relevant to the ultimate outcome and his his actions to a certain extent could be criticized but at the same time under the gist of the action the recognition that this was a contract that there was no fraud a we as a separate matter not related to the contract that would permit the fraud claim to be brought it was not an easy question the facts had to be in the court had to be cognizant of the facts  this action and i think that the the district court then on remain and had to be cognizant of those facts to in exercising his discretion on whether mr de moore could get attorney's fees  we just discussed at length your colleague the factual findings still stand including breaches of contract on both sides and it isn't isn't that what fundamentally informs the rather equitable resolution that both parties seem to have agreed upon finding on unjust enrichment presumably that would have been the basis for a one point five million dollar judgment under those circumstances doesn't that counsel in favor of push judgment interest going back to the first original judgment