as an escalation and they had a practice of doing business in this case there were twenty separate escrow arraignments for each and probably the partisan head conducting business enough that after oh well they had a habit of not requiring progress yesterday which is in the writings in this book and they were successful the first projects this wanted to invest in those projects in the form of lending money to this develop so when it came time to pay off those first ten projects they follow the same pattern there was a process that it was but there was no allegation that there was does it matter if in fact the work actually was done that day the problem is a certain point the project was funded so that it never would have been complete with the amount of money they had when they should have never paid out all the money for a project was what they would have had me been ten percent but they still ahead a building that was ten percent less complete so it's their damages were created by their actions in lending to someone who either aid misrepresented the cost of completion or be they knew it landed the money to them anyway whether they paid every penny how full of they paid him back ten percent those buildings would never been complete and they would have been ten percent went home federal dismissed the twenty eight replaced it with the house saying this is really a breach of the usual relationship they really didn't change the nature of the controversy because they're seeking money damages and money damages is a remedy al courts are because it prevented my client from having a right to a jury trial for protected by the self those are the two points right there with any questions strictly on the nature of really he said well courts of law granting compensation home federal is looking for compensation this case so there or compensation giving the beneficiary an amount of money that he or what the dr d should have given him in the first place or what the trustee improperly misappropriate but secondly and independently liability so when counsel says we didn't prove our case with respect to this course of dealing that he realized that's not an issue before therefore the only issue before the court is evidence in this is not a deal the evidence shows that the at growing didn't satisfy any one of those conditions in the case of each and every brawl the evidence altho wanted to give an offset against the amount of money that it was wrongfully disbursed to reflect the values of the completed work or the work that was paid tax correct ok now there was no need for the crown to make that estimate unless there was some question as to whether or not our recovering from evidence in this case seems to me overwhelming that prejudgment interest is appropriate first of all we're talking about a situation where home federal been deprived of its funds for about six years knowing all that shouldn't they have been even more vigilant i mean if you're saying we think these guys are crooks they're from their frogging lot but i'm going to take on the duty of making sure they do these posted they're supposed to do if you take it on you take it on don't tip if you take on the responsibility then you have the right allegation performing responsibility but what they were doing is performing the way that had been our practice that was they would talk they would contact and regular contact there was to say you know we're innocence in this world and it was and they knew what they