plan for quote under absorbed in direct costs based on phantom quantities of the government's regional country yester circuit appeal where three of my colleagues went into great detail a spell thing and by three nature what ought to happen with regard to damages in this case however after yes basically a decision in this case after the court's decision in this case the court decided h issue for convenience i didn't say you couldn't get not just the couldn't get in to start profit but that you couldn't get anything if you had not delivered any actual cylinders other than what you might get in the termination for convenience quantification damages based on under absorbed six or it costs which is the remedy or the measure of damages discussed in a firm in which i  into detail on this issue in the sent pages distinguishing applied and it seemed to me that the basis for that distinguishing was that no cylinders to been delivered in applied i  didn't address the council one thing i'm concerned about isn't high sheer now from the language that i was thinking of performing we were when i asked my previous question which is the court stated we stated then high c or referring to applied we stated that if it was determined any cylinders were delivered to d l a apply should have the opportunity to establish he was entitled to an equitable adjustment in the price of the cylinders however we continued it was determined that no cylinders were delivered to  a and applied with limited to the remedy available to it under the contract terminations for convenience clause i'm concerned how are we supposed to make an equitable adjustment in the form of unabsorbed overhead when were bound to follow our prior to sit in applied i want to kind of start where i started with the other council which the board never addressed damages or the quantum of damages other sentence but it is the potential for anticipatory profit and the federal circuit circuit talked at length about detailed detailed length about the various ways in which the plaintiff in this case may or may not recover damages there was never will just on the goods delivered but there was also what award and this court said the federal courts court has discretion over this of unabsorbed overhead on the stuff not delivered also so i'm just trying to reconcile your statement performance in high sure some delivery and i grew with you i think that's exactly the basis upon which i shared distinguished here's my concern if applied had delivered one cylinder to the government does that mean under high s suddenly they're entitled to all of the unabsorbed overhead on the other ninety thousand they didn't deliver but the fact that they simply didn't get one over there quick enough before the whole thing was terminated means they're not entitled to the unabsorbed overhead on all i mean there's no question the board found below they were in the process of performance so as a finding of fact so it's i just i struggle with hanging the whole thing on whether or not one item was actually delivered which seems to be the distinction that you're taking from very important so if i'm wrong about this i definitely want you to let me know i thought that the award of unabsorbed overhead and high share was for undelivered items not for anything that lay outside