business records and those were the records of both two companies midship logistics which was a company that caterpillar hired to transport the salt from you notion going ship to new orleans where it came from it as for the business arrangement to our customers as we sold it and we sent trucks up with procrit paperwork and so on at the end of the business relationship they make the choice that we experienced was fourteen hundred eighty six times in other words thirteen thousand nine hundred seventy six times with list went out but that left a shortage of four three hundred eighty six to us at the trial the judge just six times that were missing leaves it lost or five eleven hundred eleven thousand four hundred fifty dollars now at trial for the very first time the defense raised a challenge the fact that  here and this i mean seem to confuse the trial judge he spent a lifetime analyzing this and looking at this he made a color chart and figure out why the metric time column didn't up and then you look at the mining international document which is three all the standard towns are all consistent throughout and here's the other point just it's big it's a greater amount of other words he that kind of mistake would show more weight more salt coming in there was never any evidence that they got less than fifteen thousand four hundred sixty two you have them getting more saw even worse off so they can use that as a reason saying it properly metric if you sue if you assume what your argument is if you then they didn't return it up they said well you know like they said here look we are reasonable we put a fence around it we put it back there and the court said no you can't simply say that you did that unless you can show what know the rest of our rebate i think that certainly we were patent two hundred eleven thousand even under reconciliation that number comes up to fifty five thousand six fifty and we didn't get back so we would believe that salt and the difference in the in the quantity for sale depends on the amount of the ball so if you look at the record there you know where mr battle so we would be seeking sixty three dollars a ton for this amount seventy five dollars for that amount were different amount so what happened there was no testimony as to what those work nobody nobody from the s n i or any of its vendors who were sponsible for the weighing and transferring and shipping ever testified yes we took forty seven thousand regarding the methodology used to take the salt from the piles to the to the conveyors to the trucks each truck that went out how do we take that was very interesting is that everybody agrees everybody agrees that the weights tickets issued by my clients were accurate mr bell that's testified that none of his clients ever ten ever came to him and complained that any of those measurements were in error so the one measurements that we know are absolutely correct were the tr that ship with all these conflicting records was not available to us at the time so we get any guess the reconciliation was done in the time when we were trying to find out where the problem was ok they were trying to  it was so nice that problem a presumption is has gone worst is that right versus on a house he says the knew it was incumbent upon them to come forward with evidence by preponderance of the evidence that we were negligent in the handling of the salt moore she just made a good argument about fact and we did do more group things be on these business records we didn't have the people from the dock in new orleans to say just how did they calculate this graph survey weight and so on and so forth like the us supreme court has spoken to this this is why we have business records of a doctor and we cited on page seven of our brief agreed this was a short stunt or a standard time case and everybody knows that they were all consistent even that straight record and the e p a and their own billing record everybody was consistent on the can't really rely on the activism help them argue that they didn't get it out that would say they got more so i think that the basic argument that he just made is has a fallacy and that is that it would say that that's all we do but it was their record and their person when the wetzel their financial person who testified said when i did that record i relied on the records and they were all accurate so their o