these representations including a mistake on the on the discharge port when we talked about the i'm c bill of lading and i also would like to address something that your honor does mention and that is is there a lack of evidence to prove that go twenty fifth two thousand and twelve which was two days before this cargo was placed aboard the carrion vessel which was called the industrial destiny and in that in that document kevin cummings representing up aspecific lee says we can farm warry is the discharge unloaded in nigeria then when the cargo was actually loaded on board the docks for destiny which was on the twenty seventh of december soon after that there was a grapple blading and a vessel manifest both issued both of them doesn't it warriors destroy board both of them sent to mr cummings at no point mr brain testified at trial at no point did anyone ever call them email him or contact him in any way say hold on one or it is the incorrect chord in fact it was radio silence in till he got to twenty seventh simberg i'm sorry twenty fifth december email that confirmed again in writing or you see just george port it wasn't until january the third twenty eight thirteen when the vessel the car goes on the there's already a contract in place the vessel owners already performing so the fact that the hour after the fact there be to advise that the shipper may want to change the discharge port doesn't obligate i see to change their contract and i might add the email from mr cummings to i m c does not say we made a mistake is supposed to be logs not lawry it does not say there's an inconsistency within the shipping documents on aria what it without i'm sees knowledge there was a mistake on the discharge court but i'd see was included in those communications if you look at later in those emails strings mr cummings says to that agent i think i can get in a exhibit ten and again exhibit ten is the email the written email confirmation from pat to i and c confirming warry in writing confirming warry as the discharge port and again this was done two days before this cargo was placed aboard the bus industrial destiny in houston the district court did not mention that email in her in her decision and we believe that that it was just simply over looked but it's incorrect to say the argument is unsupported is also supported by the way by the testimony of both mr branding and by the fact that all of these documents showing moreas the discharge court were sent to the booking channels and not once did somebody come back and say is incorrect was the contract we would submit that it is it is irreconcilable to say that a party performs pursuant to a valid contract and yet is still liable in tort for negligence mis doesn't appear on the bill lady doesn't appear on in the shipping documents and even is kill testify there is no relationship at all i see my time is up a lot of ground to cover a lot of water  fact the only negotiable build this case was a freight plus bill which was issued and it gets me to the point about to experience finding that the freight plus bill was erroneous or false my client contracted with the path to take the rebel lagos that's what they thought up until the point that it was not in largo's they had no prior knowledge that it was not going to be discharged there mr cummings behavior aside they were our carrier they were also i moreover with i am see they allowed ya pat to ship repeatedly cargo without the contemporaneous payment of freight which led to the issue here they the freight for the rebel was heard competing evidence on that point mr cummings and testified about what he did or didn't do the judge made credibility in evidentiary determinations and found seventy thirtieth's what she found she said that my client was had been negligent but that i am see also was for not following their own internal procedures they had a procedure in place to verify the accuracy of the information going into their shipping documents it's not always council suggest that go been talking about not having preserved certain documents which you also term a procedures they would have followed when they go out with questions like this that would confirm the destination i thought the problem she had is that they didn't have based on them half on the procedures and also what went on in early january about you know there's an e mail from an eye to eye and see from a mc about getting incentives and the moon we ask mr brenton to try about what that meant the judge was unimpressed with his answer so it was a fluid circumstance there was there was certainly an opportunity to take corrective action i'm arguing for a down the day i believe that my my client was not negligent the only thing that was false erroneous and the fray plus building was that it said law goes in the cargo did not go to logs we thought it was going to largest the fact that the onboard date was different the fact that it was a fifty year old target and we didn't have a detailed description of pain to the contrary i would agree judge and i'm i'm arguing for indemnity and i would concede that given the seventy thirty split i'm more likely to be in the contributions fear but i think it's fully supported by the findings below the factual findings conferences and antitrust things that congress address as far as rebates and again we are clearly a carrier ok and we do not operate chips that that isn't in the o c c and for the court adopt a broad rule that the  during the pending negotiations for the transportation of the tugboat or even up until i believe september of two thousand and thirteen that my client even know they exist and so i see so it definitely did not have previous contract with the one thing that i'm see pointed out in that argument is that they feel that they've earned the freight because they performed a contract with that basic question which concept that you perform because it certainly is not the one that the ship or the owner of the the opinion page twenty year i was because i'm looking at the part about the attorneys the lost profits and all of these things and i'm trying to and that's not what you're talking about that's what ok you're the only talking later in two thousand and thirty and all terms conversation was strictly with miss lisa kill and no mention of any other parties so one thing the case law and general equity mandates is that vessel and our position which is supported by case law and judge gergen pointed out as well that maritime lien is not absolute and this court that questions before this court before  the maritime wing can be modified when number one if there is no previous contract between the cargo owner and the vessel and that has to be the contract and the notice has to be made before the vassal as a lo right ok i think i understand your argument ok i thank you very much freight only get freight plus on the theory that it would be an equitable to ask the owner of the cargo which was g i c to pay freight twice and so she decided that under eco principles our argument is that although we agree that free plus is liable for the freight we also think that she should have awarded against the cargo in room because the cargo benefited from the carriage now mr boot is absolutely correct that we did not have a contract  have this in this case there's not a contract which holds the super absolutely and additionally liable you're correct or a line in that apartment distinction in equity issue because of the strong king case there are multiple carrier defendants the conference only applied to one of the striking so that the conference agreement that was in place and struck in didn't didn't play a part in the courts and the fish circus decision that all they cared to finish deserved to be paid for the car intermediary that disappears with the money and that's what we're dealing with here that's what was dealt with by this court in the striking case and that's what was dealt with by the eleventh circuit where the shipper pays a ship in intermediary that intermediary doesn't pay the carrier and goes out of business or goes away who bears the risk of that in the end on the decision of struck in under national oil company saudi arabia the policy of the course of come up with is that the shipper bears t