honor not to my recollection but certainly the the fact of the arguably competing interests at least with respect to damages was addressed for our part by the plaintiffs think that that's all true your honor and i don't view that as anything more than the situation which we have often in toward cases involving multiple plaintiffs where there is deep potential for a war of duplicate conflict in the two positions as it does with just if a faulty argument on their part that the it contractor would white communications was not a party could somehow supersede one to which it was a party  cause basis for removal of mr white from his company or from their company was supported by showing of showing that he had caused immediate or deferred economic or reputation irreparable economic is not is not the same thing as saying your reputation has now been irreparably harmed and and quite different matters i think some somebody or something could be guilty of something for which there is your  in and say hey this damaged the reputation and i'll never forgive them for it is that is that basically what will happen after irreparable reputational this damage clearly that would clearly that would have would have helped her case i don't think it would have to be quite that quite that direct but as in all cases involving reputation there would be need to be evidence showing here was the reputation here it is after the fact acknowledged that they knew of no but knew of nobody who thought less of synergies because of what mr white had done and that's it yes in my view an outright admission that there was not reputation what has a reputable economic harm mean when you have a severe downturn or a substantial downturn in business but you're not death well i think in the in the record in this case to a number of witnesses including the defendants were asked what they understood he represented to mean and the answer is that it means they can't fix it now i think and you fix it when when you have an operating loss for a substantial period of time territories but they both they also acknowledged that they did not know whether that was caused by something mr white did it happened nine months later and ended it had been there was no evidence presented there was it was caused by by very good thank you just for voting members have a reasonable belief there's business a suffer irreparable harm i don't recall that's what it said and i guess what i'm what i'm looking for us we're like gold it's fine that sperm case would be create a breach reputation in order to establish that there's actual reputational harm why don't we do that when we have an undefined term share and again i think you would you would look at the common sense relations and he had seen hospitals terminated or want to be in a zero tolerance policy which prohibit any sort of a national conduct by its employees or independent contractor jury verdict charged a different standard to what i think there's another aspect to this because the only counsel notes that in response to a jury question which obviously came after the instructions of your mean we're saying you can now who are the instructions and we don't see that you're well well i know but it's a highly this notion that it can't be scott because scott didn't focus didn't use the same language is that your instruction is highly technical and it seems to me if there was then a further question from the jury on this issue and clarification by the trial court that's all we have to look at that's the point i take your point your honor i respectfully don't agree that that was the tend to be the course response to the question or of or of councils for that matter if i if i may also addressed briefly in my next forty three seconds there's going to suggestion strong suggestion now by council that it's somehow our position our fuel is undermined because the jury could have found that mr white didn't prove his side of the contract breach claim first of all  that doesn't that doesn't change the defective nature of the evidence on the affirmative defense that they had accrued more importantly perhaps there was no dispute at all in this case on any of the other issues the record is before the court and has been briefed by the parties that the other elements of the contract work were overwhelmingly established and nobody ever claimed that they weren't and so and so it really did entire case on this point for mr white was decided and determine