got forty five percent interest in the corporate in the corporation which was worth one without without a lot without a billboard to be part of what was the value of the stock with the billboards behind it all it was without any wait she didn't get seven hundred fifty thousand dollars for the stock she got seven hundred fifty thousand dollars from the stock stock to be paid pursuant to a purchase plan and the purchase plan was clearly in consideration of  jury and the jury looked at all the evidence after but then the jury came back with a verdict i don't know what you're complaining about because the jury is allowed to award three hundred forty thousand dollars in damages based on the but there are those stocker myths actually i mean to me those billboard permits were billboards to generate income for didn't the than the failure of the transaction result in loss of court should have and should have instructed it should have needed needed determination of the issue of the issue prior to charging the jury with a decision as to what the intent of the parties was perhaps but to allow allow party to pay only a hundred thousand dollars for property but to get damages  jury on the breach of contract claim there was evidence as to how much was lost by not having the contract fulfilled and the risk testimony of much of the million dollars and i don't know what the jury actually factored in when they came up with this three hundred forty thousand dollars but they did have evidence before them of this very substantial loss to the corporation because of the breach of contract now you know and i may not agree that that was the right amount that they arrived yet but i don't think we can challenge that so your only challenge is as to mean by timing you say the first paragraph which says she agrees to sell her shares and so on and so forth and at the end of so is o m d agrees to pay rich seven hundred fifty thousand dollars according seven hundred fifty thousand dollars according to the payment plan and the terms and conditions set forth below now why doesn't that condition because your promise because it doesn't state doesn't state that that is an express condition that there will be a forfeiture of the m purchase price of that now you're arguing you said it's only ambiguous and then it should be construed in your favor and then all these are timing provisions so if i take correctly you're saying that the payment plan to rich paragraph four point three within fourteen days after reset of a receipt of a permanent permanent set for each location is a timing question so what is it describes mr her husband as an independent contractor because that got to do with anything found so this is an integrated contract all of you don't interpret contracts by the title you look at all of the just by the title you look at the language you give me the the at the qualifier and the you just you jump off to it it doesn't contain certain language and therefore it's a forfeiture but that's not the language of the country because your honor it's crafted by plain language of the contract now you are you're resorting to the consequences of the plain language of the contract i'm suggesting that the contract graft of a corporation does not does not provide the result you're describing and it makes no sense in light of the fact the person is just it's just fundamentally unfair i think having received only a hundred thousand dollars is libel for three hundred forty thousand dollars and i was just a couple of times ok and i asked one question there is no provision five in the contract which we where the corporation candid dangling out there i don't believe it was dealt with or i do not believe it was dealt with may please the court jonathan whitehead on behalf of the pelleas out there media dimensions and alexander cam to dress to your first question on your honor that you just asked that issue was raised at trial both myself and to ride with the trial counsel for the defense account of claimants and it was an issue that was raised both by the plaintiffs and cross examined by us and just to point out one thing today before i get to some of the a several obligation one thing that is the vote from both of our brief is the fact that shortly after the complaint was filed plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on the contract and the issue was presented to the district court howard the case and then we were in front of that darned obama quake and at that point in time he had all the discovery and all the way through but addressing their arguments first thing they say is looking at the contract and citing  nothing on the jury came back and found that the plaintiff for not damage that they materially breached the agreement and that my clients were damaged yes and that's that they had general jury instructions on breach  diversity with all due respect i do not think it is an issue of diversity and this is why there are two parties who got an award of the same amount which is the same verdict for the three hundred thousand dollar conversion that's what we're talking about  was argued by the plaintiff counter defendants was that we were seeking to take monies that had been coming out of the oregon corporation and included in our claim when the trial exhibit that when in concerning the documents showing portions of the conversion the district court was very careful that any document related to the oregon corporation did not come into evidence that was a heated issue that went back and forth so the that is not my recollection your honor my my recollection was there were multiple credit cards multiple debit transfer debit  statements coming out of the nevada corporation and the testimony by carl parks had to do with outdoor media dimensions the nevada corporation is what was being history of this case is that the company was actually incorporated by jeffrey first since father who was an attorney license stuff in oregon and the formalities of of corporations if i were to that he was taken out and the known to our clients including lines of credits that they had paid off and closed out and in fact sued our clients over those lines of credits at and we had to present evidence to counter that they had taken those mon and used them for personal use the second thing is and what your saw the district court state and in the order was throughout the entire trial mr hurston was severely impeached and his credibility was not very strong by the time they got to the jury as was his wife and in fact if you see the district court's memorandum order denying the motion for new trial he makes a strong point about the fact that they were seriously in peach throughout the entire trial so the way to give his testimony there your honor i think is suspect and should be different the deference should go to the jury on that issue and less or any other questions for the court from