elimination that the the court you just disagreed with the court on the measure of damages but the court didn't find there was no injury right the court to the high there was no actually the court only changed but what you bought was land that had too many buildings on one line and they would have had to come down even to use that right correct right and then the other line could not be developed value and what they would pay for they would have made two hundred grand if they had bought it many would buy it and then sell it for the one point two million dollars there is no other way to measure damages that's not a windfall that would have been their damages so in that very straight and narrow case it's easy to just use the first part of that measurement but then in a case like ours in their case they really intended based on the evidence the best evidence was they intended to get the sixty percent mark bought obliteration on the northern lot they because they ended up getting more than the benefit of what they were intending then perhaps the true measure damages would have been what did it cost them to get there not that they had a duty to do that we never had a duty to mitigate nor did the judge say they had to do it but in light of the fact that they were able to achieve greater law coverage than they intended based on the evidence then the proper measure damages in this case was what it cost them to get there they chose not to put any evidence on with regard to that issue because they wanted the court to neither what existed what was intended or what they cheat there was no measure of damages based on any of the actual things work work or kirk but this sixty five percent racial that i don't i'm sure working so all  testing and all that expert witnesses testimony was a conjecture well if we assume sixty five percent here's how i would measure damages on looking at the difference in value based on the date of court and not looking at what was actually ach and that's why the court correctly said i'm not going to give you a five hundred dollars dollar windfall but had you bothered to put on evidence of what it cost you to get eighty percent i would have given you what it cost you engineering  separately and ignore the buildings built down there and i'm going to go to the county and i'm in demand that i get another fifty percent on the northern line that's what he did and the county told them we're not going to agree with that we're not allowed to do that we've always been treated as one person for all  and the fact that the fifty percent not covered was focused on one part of the property then the other has nothing to do with that they argue about he did not file for various to get his eighty percent for eight months eight months from closing for eight months he argued that county trying to force them to give him access that block coverage and what he was now separating out was an older model the only person in the history of these properties ever have done that and they said no we're not to do it apply for the variance he finally applied for the decided they were going to try to make this run in the us and try to make themselves whole renegotiate price but there was no breach and further there was no breach not only was the property in compliance with zoning ordinance did closing as testified to by their two point one warm of the contract and section nine point zero one of the contract they had a duty to tell us there is a breach and give us our opportunity future under those terms of contract and back in nine point zero one it sa if you find a breach of contract after calls you have to give us a ten day notice to cure before you can follow any of your other remedies they never did there's something argument that  want the poppies are not limited it's just credit you want to do you could build fifty percent live coverage as a matter right which means it could have built out the rest of the eleven buildings that my client had proved they could go over or  variance so all of those there we had to go through all these hoops for eleven months to get more than fifty percent lockers that's what they intended from the get go the testimony says it murphy says yes i told them sixty percent are covered the engineer that why when you buy a piece of property you intend you knew all everything about the property from your own engineer your plight or variance is intended to get variances to maximize law carly why would you bring this l and you got a thing you wanted and more and again we come back to the only issue that could possibly be out there was that in light of the two thousand and eight real estate crash that somehow their bank was putting pressure on mercenaries so i think it's rare to find that a trial court ruling is against the manifest weight of the evidence but it's also clear from the record there is absolutely nothing in the sell so when you say there was only it present where thinking of activities because you look at the testimony of the gentleman i just quoted all of them said up until mr murphy came along the properties were always taken together nobody the first and only person to contemplate separating them was mr murphy if it's in this case they created the whole issue of them being separate parcels sixty five percent are covered no one even the county didn't look at the southern cross and the piece of real estate quote unquote runs with the land so that is how the land existed and that was what the county was committed to buy all by there or in the saying they were coming to abide by that they could not go back on that plant they've  well i believe your honor that if this court were to find that there was no breach then we would be entitled to our attorney's fees with dates of the prevailing party in this under the contract it's section ten point one two states that the prevailing thousand flaws and the fact that the court found on and five of the six points two points on misrepresentation two points on fraud and two points on breach of contract that five of those six points by rectifying we prevailed and that they only are sold by different i'll see to t different policies here there is treated differently under the contract if there was an agreement with the county back in the day that we're going to trial court's conclusion that the measure of damages i believe is this measure of damages if a breach actually occurred was correct the cost of care but in this case because there is evidence that the were seeking a variance in all costs because there's there's evidence that he directed his engineering to develop plan a sixty percent lack of range at the cost of getting that benz was something he was going to incur regardless so even if a breach were found there or even no this secret agreements inside agreements that we were supposed to disclose there is no such thing i don't even know where this is actually coming from as as just this rain is pointed out there is annoyance and it runs of the land is an ordinance that is  question ok is this the plan that was approved in two thousand by will county n c i believe it was yes question ok so this is the two thousand approved plan and not this layout eight of those ten buildings were actually constructed as a few thousand eight  that correct yes question so this was the plan that was approved in two thousand by the common and using the compile parcels according to george that it was a fifty percent block coverage and according to your calculations just a little bit different if the one point first two thousand and general layout are you familiar with this bottom and answer yes question ok and this was the plan that was baltimore the approved by the county answered yes i don't know what more evidence we could present to the trial shield the properties so kind of like a due diligence discussion so that the plaintiffs in this case i don't know what they found the count but on november thirteenth filing closing they sat down with an engineer who went through every detail of mock coverage and what was approved and what was bill