is the time use of money correct so if we take the time preceding the initial jury verdict we can assume that there is no time use of money because the jury has fixed that amount for the first time right no in this particular if ten days prior to the verdict how could i pay the debt or how could i pay interest if i did not know what the princip jack was a product of the terminations for convenience clause there seem to be a substantial difference between the video and the verdict some people thought it was worth what seventy some thousand and others lockheed martin to negotiate and liquidate agreed to the amount that was due at the time or shortly after the time of the terminations for convenience it was if that time that the amount should have been determined and when we went to the jury he jury determined that the amount that should have been determined and paid at that time was five hundred twenty two thousand dollars and the in this case that would be the case i think there are probably breach cases where that might not be the case like you have an installment contract breach and it's a total breach but the installments would have been due for some time thereafter so you would set the interest in different time periods in that was that is that falls under the california statute and certainly pre judgment interest on liquidated claims there are two such statutes in big one is concern since i believe that this is the only circuit that holds that there is federal question jurisdiction unique controversy between private parties over a sub parties agreement which provides that federal law is to govern the interpretation of federal clauses including the contract goes on to say including the calculation of damages and that's exactly what we have here th the law and that applies with equal force here to the issue out of pre judgment interest in addition to the termination for convenience clause that was referred to earlier there's another federal that's directly relevant here and that's far forty nine point two zero one any which is the so called fair compensation rule the jury was charged with the task of determining fair compensation there was no date on which the jury was instructed the term unfair compensation it was instructed to determine fair compensation period and i think the reasonable inference is that the jury did that as of the date of its verdict opposing counsel and many times because the jury was not instructed with respect to a date there were a number of different damage figures or with different dates that were presented to the jury during trial there was a one million dollars demand that we had been submitted shortly after the short of before the lawsuit was filed in one thousand nine hundred six there was another number in the mid six hundred thousands that was a developed later and there was a number of third number that was actually presented to the jury on the damages were being determined so the specific answer to your your honest question do we know for sure landed the jury value this claim the answer is we don't know but the jury was instructed in june of two thousand to award fair compensation and there is no basis to conclude i don't think based on the record that it did anything other than just that as it was sitting in the jury room deliberating i think he had in mind that he did not have he runs the heart that would be there no it wouldn't pre judgment interest i think he was there are three components of interest that are there we're talking about here one is the component that arose prior to the verdict one is the period during the period of time the rule thirty seven issued from the verdict to the court mandate and the third is post judgment interest where i think judge real was talking about in our very in the very brief hearing which was also when the exercised his discretion over whether to award pre judgment interest which is what was asked for i think i think he did exercise his discretion by by reading the papers and ruling but he didn't rule as you say he was  the only comment he made in the in the hearing address of the rule thirty seven time period i don't think that that means that he did not read the entire motion consider all of the issues and rule on all three periods of time i don't think that that's a fair reading of the of the record i think the judge did what he was charged to do which was to consider the entire motion the entire opposition and rule on all of the issues in twenty seconds but i got two things on talk to you about so that we don't have you back here again next time on one thirty one there was a payment of seventy four thousand six hundred seventy four dollars should that be credited to principal or to first and if so on what date it's a