charge me with staying up all night the think of questions to play gotcha well you folks that stayed up must stand up all night reading this this portion of the appeal at present before any of the breeze correct correct the second round this is the plaintiff cannot claim that the arbitrator exceeded his powers when the record shows that it was plain snitching on the hi lo i think a stopped at this point from having us consider that i'm just pointing out what the record shows i think in a petition i'm able to argue that the court miss but what i say and whatever disclaimer i make this and change what the record shows the record shows the points of argument was premised on the hi lo my our opposition is very simple we all fifty percent liability and i'm indebted to the court for pointing out that it was liability and i fault fifty percent liability for five hundred fifty thousand dollars are going to simple to seventy five we want to talk about the high low we don't to talk about whether the award is within the the only way it could have happened i think tell you based on the record and the witness submissions that we did not disclose it and that clearly five thousand dollars payment and the condition factor or whatever was representing my time excepted then why is it moved cause the acceptance of the i mean maybe our decision was clearly erroneous when we concluded that the trial court should have sent this back for clarification perhaps we were clearly erroneous in that reduced in the event of an appeal will you just the appeal yes if even if the parties so to speak accept the terms and the terms work the plaint he was not entitled to one eighty four seven fifty and of two fifty what he forfeited was his right to a new rb for if he got everything that he bargained for he got a talking about right now deviates from where i expected your rationale to die because i would have thought that if you were going to jack the notion that it's wa it substituted really let me finish by saying if you had not accepted the two seventy five i would agree with you under with three sixty six a five you could award any relief that would be appropriate as long as th took the two seventy five under no compulsion when he voluntarily accepted the benefit of the judgment he for that question let me just suggest that my view is that since neither side have asked for the remainder simply ask this court to decide a finite issue that  hindsight you know the first one i stuffed up here last october and justice macwrite yesterday first question was something along the lines of can't you just you know split the difference i should have said with twenty twenty hindsight amount recoverable fire i think i'm entitled to rely on the rule of davis first p c and when a department comes to me or since for using me as the short and says i'll take the judgment now but my appeal will always be all over the world eighty four and then he files a brief that says i'm asking for one eighty four and then his reply brief he comes back and sa i never wanted a new arbitration that it would be inappropriate for me to come up here or in a brief say well we already paid to seventy five because to look point is it really relevant to us this court i mean honestly how w and that based upon the record as it stands this court cannot make any determination as to whether or not the error was injected into the proceedings by either error of law i would finally rely on the well settled rule that says that it has to be apparent from the face of the award and not based upon any finding that was made distinct from the award and that here the appellant with the burden did not show the roast error of the law that was evident on the face of the award and for that reason respectfully we would ask you to afoot here we you both know you are standing up or neither of you are writing a word in your briefs about who blew the whistle not making any argument the power and what are we supposed to do scratch into the hidden recesses of your record to pull out a fact that might conceivably give us an idea and then probably withstand the notion that neither of you were asking for it in the comes to whether now we pay to seventy five before the first brief was filed and i don't say it when i would otherwise be accusing my opponents of something that was a picture of the agreement five minutes begins now citing from another just that seems to be of some significance because it doesn't say that up these matters should to move to case a burden to make known the factors that could move the appeal as long as the appeal is still pending even if those that all of the cases however many or few there are with regard to accepting the benefits of the judge with the possibility that if you get  remanded it is possible that you may take less and therefore you you've in effect waive your right to take that kind of appeal in every little this case there the issue was brought to the attention of saying that your right to appeal will still remain and i think that kind of points us in the direction of advisory opinions which is basically one of the rational family  those reported decisions where the authority for the ruling goes to condemnation treatises and journalist that is something peculiar about condemnation law i believe so that when the government who is the conduit york pays the money to wherever they pay whatever public official the money's withdrawn there's into possession that's a whole different kind of a ball game than we have in this high low grade which will still apply against the new arbitration on could we not see him in green handing this for a new arbitration christian i would prefer not to do that my billion is the answer is probably i'm sorry that i can't be more specific i'm supposed to be able to answer all your questions and let you write something on  the question although i think they agreed that it would go before this particular arbitrator and if you lost it arbitrator that may be the essence of the agreement it's too difficult a question to answer just like that  confusing a confusing aspect in it and the average creator's initial b time a nation evaluating the total damages to five hundred fifty thousand dollars that's clear i mean of course decision is you want you know you're saying you're trying to return the parties to the position they were in before the original arbitration and honestly you can't do that anymore you can't do that and you can't do it for the reasons that i think have been parties indicate it should not have been it formed out right and when we heard this case an oral argument we were not aware it off that that would cause a problem yes potentially he would have relief because there's no problem whatsoever well that aspect of the decision where he said they're not to tell the one eighty four s that move that's what he was entitled to get a ruling  i think it's clear that jurisdiction cannot be created by waiting her or a stopped ball and the fact that this is being brought to your attention i mean it's been brought to your attention here stiction is that the same well seventy five regardless robert when you would do it would now be moot if we were to buy into your argument that he voluntary acceptance of benefits i think if the horses die day it's a yes three miss and i want to thank both lawyers for this in lightning presentation i wish we had known then what we know now but we'll