i understand correctly you did not have a favor motion for judgment as a matter of law at the close of all the evidence as director on doesn't that cook your goose i don't think so because there are several you look at the first of all you know the district think also however you need to look at the district courts for reaching the having reached the merits and apply the proper standard to review even if you put all of that aside and say we had no right to a general help because we didn't make  white that's not we're not talking about squishy witnesses who get on the stand start squirming we're talking about black and white you know this is what we told stryker we'll take care of byron if we will take care of  bad faith with proof she did we do bad faith in denying these is that i think that my ears trying to say the fact that you denied that there was a contract it's sort of like you know a person complete not guilty to murder and they can still be guilty that you know you can take a position thousand dollars so the jury was presented with conflicting evidence they had no basis upon which to select one number versus another and they were free as they did to find that you  and you have your opportunity to present your evidence to the jury and if there is evidence to the contrary either that there is evidence to the contrary and deal with it or you don't and you take your chances when presenting a jury instruction which he says under our cases can be construed as a motion which was your answer to my answer to that is this on the jury instructions they simply reserve the right on the made an objection without prejudice to what ultimately became the jury instructions which by the way was stupid were stipulated to all the jury instructions were stipulated so they did it without prejudice but then they did not insist upon a ruling on their objection at any point in time likewise they didn't insist upon a ruling on a motion in limine number nine so there was never any ruling on either the objection or the motion and so under the decisions that  instruction with a reservation of rights however there was no subsequent insistence upon a ruling on that objection and so the instructions were all stipulated to after the lawsuit was filed seven months down the road they sell the business to stryker well that's not that wasn't the basis upon which we sue them for repudiation in the first place and they said well in the contract there's there's mention of settlement discussions the jury heard evidence testimony that a person from stryker who was dealing with us or he will receive a price sheet which didn't jive with the schedule and to the actual contract he was looking a different pricing structures u s surgical wasn't telling the truth to stryker when it sold the business in fact at the time you mr tickell denied that the contract even existed so how could  contract called for a very specific price in one very specific part numbers and u s surgical did not even make a factual truthful representation to stryker regarding that also it did not tell stryker that there was an any surgical was not acting in good faith the jury heard instructions declining good faith is meaning honesty in fact that was dishonest conduct in dealing with stryker so the jury didn't have the evidence to find that there was no good faith in the jury like i did have evidence to make its determination of ostroff as we point out in the brief there there were two ways of skinning the can at least two ways they say that the jury found that we weren't handled incidental damages and then just at tack on another million dollars well there is nothing in the jury verdict to suggest that there is no separate finding of incidental damages and weeks of that th come up with a number it's almost identical in the purpose of that exercise was to show that the jury did its job and deliberated and this court in determining whether the jury did its job has an obligation under the law thing instructions and he was pret i don't understand how that can be construed as in objecting to the sufficiency of the evidence because the instruction they want and god had nothing in there about good faith