versus the oil company i would have said if you raise the question because it overrules the mice and we know that why did you do that i'm trying to explain the principle of siemens princip in reading the transcript pretty clearly nobody objected that was the procedure that was laid down by the district judge when she did get the group fifty motions even though i agree with you one of these and afterwards but that's why i counsel could make the same arguments that he made a week or ten days whatever it was later but this is the way the court and won the day and it was done and it was presented in up in a highly detailed and professional the opposite direction of the gist of the action that does not lead me in the direction that they want to go and it did not lead the court in the direction that they now want to go this is an issue that was not ra jury instruction is consistent with how we've tried the case consistent with everything that was done until they got to the rule fifty motion which by the way with after the jury was charged which i'm looking at the transcript number six twenty seven if you'll notice this part of the transcript was in the afternoon it's the next page it closed at three forty five pm if memory serves me i have not cited the paperwork but if memory serves the jury was charged that morning charged before the with they bring the motion before the jury is charged or acted if there is charged the critical issue is by leaving it out of the pretrial order we are precluded we are sandbagged essentially because we as places are precluded from addressing the issue factually and also offering factual counters which exist even under pennsylvania law with a side in our being all of this was we were deprived and this is the was saying that as an individual he's not responsible for the torque the stance is an executive of the corporation if you actually look at the motion it doesn't cite any pennsylvania law doesn't cite any of these issues but even more so more in conversion to court they destructions require the jury to independently find each element of conversion as laid out by the instructions that's why this factual contention of theirs that the only basis for the jury the contract does not find support agreed instructions before they cannot but now gone one question keeps coming into my mind when you talk about conversion conversion is the taking of the chattel from the possession or constructive possession of the  and the jury found that in favor of the place but how could they find that it was the evidence that shows that he had the right to the immediate possession of warrants others then the obligation mentioned in the contract were also evidence of several letters instructions given post contract by mr kelly to the warrant issue or to issue ninety percent of the warrants to mr karr but i would point out you are even if we take what you say and say that the only basis for the position of the warrants was the contract there is ample case law from pennsylvania which holds that where there is a contract between the parties to divide fun property chattel whatever you're talking about the case involving the attorney's barnhart that was specifically decided upon the rules of professional conduct and it was in the settlement  there was a contract between a company called santa mark that i guess had access to customers for moving and a roofing company simple contract no tony snow piece split not only the contract provided that when money came that the contract provided that the roofing company the roofer will go repair roofs and collect the money from the customers and the contract for the provided that when the money came in it would be split and the roofer would give remit a portion papers i would like to be right and then i'll tell you can you try will get you i would however like to be heard more at least on the issue of unjust enrichment the jury found separately an award for unjust enrichment finding that kelly specifically what he did and the profit he made on that or the lossie avoided he is unjust enrichment but other than point three gently that the exercise is that transaction is not related to the value of the war