please the court the fundamental flaw in the proceedings will it was that this case was permitted to go beyond summary judgment and ultimately to a jury and the issue lost profits and the reason why that should have happened is the first of all the contract most naturally read frankly precludes lost profits and was revenues as a allowable source of recovery for the plaintiff in this case and second assuming we got past that none of the kind of evidence you traditionally see in the last profits case although they are all of the plaintiffs there was a there was a breach of contract and turned out the way we wanted it to and at the end of the day therefore we should just send it to the jury  decision ultimately what they've asked for kiraly is not to be put in the same position they would have been had we not reached the contract what they really want to be is put in the same position they would have been had they not entered into the we entered into this agreement we clearly did it in good faith and i was standing a lot of claims about how this went south early the reality is great west put two and a half million dollars in the conference of mayors pockets  as demonstrating its good faith desire to be able to transfer all of the endorsements from the existing nationwide accounts over to our accounts so if we put aside a dance for a second th injuries that might arise if one party or the other is dean or viewed as having not done his part and it's not as though you're left without a remedy under the circumstances all you're left with is what you would you are left with the alliance  agreement and so the troops they made the calls they made the employees whose resources were devoted and i don't think that's true from day one they would have to be a more nuanced analysis than that i think what you have to do is is look at what point in this in the process clearly great west made a determination that its sales our efforts were not going to succeed and to be sure eventually said the better course here would be to cut our losses but didn't happen immediately and indeed uncommon to have limitations on liability because we're talking about purely speculative ensure that had no comparative or and the market so that to go back to the contract argument it seems to me that the been in the business for thirty years you've been endorsed by the u s conference of mayors for thirty years you've got all these relationships established and now you're going to come in and i mean i do think both parties hope to at least that what would happen is mare's to say ah ok well let's just go over with a great west plan but that's not how it worked out it was a much more competitive environment than that so the market we're looking at only in the sense of obviously you how our sales actually performed when we put on the other changes in the us this is because what have you about the marketplace no we did not put in specifically evidence along target innocent families where it was developed as going into the end of this contract all that all of those are members of the conference of mayors that the plaintiffs in this case could have simply gone to those individuals and said why didn't you shift over and was it a failure on them on the part of the on the part of the great western was it some other explanation for it and presumably if it in fact been a consequence of our failure they would have had tons of evidence and then from that you take that plus an expert then you can get to the point of of last profit you can't just jump the last prophet by saying there's been a breach of the agreement without knowing what would happen and then the other six point three of the lessons that was then any provision in this agreement will not be liable for any loss of revenues or profits that's much more sweeping and says don't worry about what's in the in the in the language before this point there's no lost profits and no loss revenues and if you combine that with six point three this is the party's exclusive remedy comes out of the indemnification provisions six of six one in six t b and then the third is you litigate you don't say anything about the substance of what you're allowed do to take into account and only tells you the process by which you need to exercise it and where you can bring that particular litigation ach and reach is usually the language of first party first party league asian none of that language matches up perfectly to be candid because you just talking about the use of broad language at the beginning on the whole harmless and then it profits are and we're and we're going to ask you to decide both so you don't lays out at the end you don't take issue with the proposition that all a six point two is in invent indemnification provision in other words it's all indication it's just that you say even tho indemnification part of it applies to third party arrangements and part of it only applies to first right yes i mean i don't think there's any magic to the use of the word indemnification that obviously has a tendency to be connote in terms of third parties right typically to say to the parties look this is a business going to be a speculative deal and so we're going to we're not going to have lost profits or are going to have lost revenues as part of the equation and the only source of a remedy the next and the next provision is with to my mind remedy between the parties is provided for it's just it's there is just using going to as a shorthand to say six for one is it form two i don't i don't see again given that and then the vacation doesn't preclude first party claims not revisit and he made it clear to the jury found the great was breached is do you good faith and fair dealing when you look at the full instruction judge hogan in the trial record the jury necessarily found key in the context of this entire provision as hands of cards or as you must read it because there are attachments to these agreements attachment only one was a separate agreement between the cities and the mayor's court with regard to services provided by the mayor's great whereas pacifically said it would not have it would not take on third party indemnification liability for that now those means the contract the whole card for the subject it says and you know claims and this is very important the language of six point three is very different going to lend which contained in section seven which demonstrates further that it only applies in the context of indemnification liability itself was six point three any and all claims were leading to the subject matter of the agreement the subject matter of the agreement mayor's liabilities or literally contract claim related to the subject matter of the group i think a better reading your own is that under seven point one the parties clearly provided for any dispute between them relating to arising out of or relating to this agreement or the breach europe section seven clearly related to breach as between the parties section six related to third party indemnification liability as provided for and as cap and if you will by the parties to the country so so i guess i guess i'm just  party indemnification because i think of course if it's third party and i'm a physician you're home free that then the case is over the question is does a context that deals specifically with indemnification mean third party in great west agrees to defend and then if i hold harmless defend short that's their party that doesn't make any sense in the context of the first party claim but indemnify it's not incompatible with first party and what's its point to be is that's the first party part of this because if it was services in advisory services and it was that there are party liability arising from these contractual agreements that is what he goes to court absolutely disputes arising out of or related to these agreements clear first party language and finally their argument as there is no remedy no remedy thing we could get at the end of the day not the fruits of the agreement fees and royalties which were clearly the fruits of the agreement the only thing we could get is a dollar for each they could reach with impunity one dollar for a ten year contract it just i'm trying to be proof of maybe under two minutes first of all i think it's not insignificant that my friend starts off with two arguments that she has never presented before and this litigation as the reason for why he shouldn't or the lost profits of court under the circumstances i think it reflects a lack of confidence in the arguments that derive from the contract and from the evidence in this case the second of all i take her argument to conceded that indemnification can include first party out of this contract and that's precisely what the first part of six of six eight is designed to do deal with six point want to add six point two way are designed to deal with that particular problem but is just revise it as you say the problem with trying to rea six point two b as only involving third party claims is why is it that we would suddenly take out all the language about the notice about the finance and being able to take over the claims obviously the same language on its face could not be any clearer in terms of saying exactly what the outcome is and as far as the remedy may surround this contest because we have fact both front of them a ton of money because we paid their expenses went along if they are in fact not out of pocket but the reality is the question is in contract law in general is it crazy to say you're going to give up lost profits when there is an entire branch of damages that says you're entitle to blinds them because the judgment law should be reversed or on the no questions thank you counsel you counsel the cases submitted