seeking three hundred and seventy three thousand two hundred eighty three dollars based on the fact that they believe that there are steel was not paid for by us the position in this case is that not within the purview of the coverage of the act and therefore there is no recovery or seaforth lastly there is a genuine issue of material fact here that even if hand side of that form is an unconditional release that was executed by the president for seaport now as a condition of payment before being made  now on the conditional side of the release what that what it provides is if you are if seaport you receive money later after this release was signed in that amount of money is greater than or equal to the amount signed by the s c on january twenty seventh released basically released all materials deliberately through november thirtieth the conditional side of provided that applied by seaport to three november thirtieth over two payments or invoices that had actually been already released based on the unconditional side of that  play games with lien release everybody does because everybody wants a good place and depending on who gets money at a given time i goes a lien release i think we've already established that even though you do a lien release it doesn't preclude the parties from pain somebody underlying payments i guess where i'm confused is just because they did that when the judge says you're not going to get any more money from a lover there he's going strictly on the wording of the release correct that money with underneath is not material what you're saying is you should st the second once the payment was made and in on january thirty first that triggered the conditional side of the release barring any claims prior to which are fairly simple pieces where they do not work on the project site or their contract is between five and ninety percent of the total contract are simply suppliers cannot stop contractors our last argument if all of these things if you rule against us on all of these other issues we still had a genuine issue of material fact that the trial court case as to the proper allocation of payments that should have been done here which is a defense and affirmative defense in the miller act is what is the issue or fact the issue is the fact is whether the port knew or should have known based on the fact that they executed these releases that the source of the money was coming from to nor to all and therefore they had to apply it to this project and not the other projects those five other projects that you were talking about the purported issue of material fact as to whether the court should have determined that c court should have allocated the payments contrary to how discussion that issue was absolutely abandoned so we're left with simply a an issue of as a practical matter there's there's the issue of the sub contractor status but i'd like to skip lien through november thirtieth it had nothing to do with payment absolutely because they didn't get two hundred sixty eight pounds and because of the way people were using their funds barclays not on board all spread out all over the world and then i it boils down to what amounts just as a matter of construction of the four corners of this conditional release the court found number one having found that i guess he had no duty to allocate anything any different way than nordell had provide that's a finding of fact in this case it's a lot of the case well the court without any analysis and i think if you read the cour ve talked about earlier i think these are fairly standard industry forms and what we're talking about in this appeal on our cross appeal is what's the proper construction of this standard industry form if you followed  we had six public projects a one hundred thousand each and you signs six conditional release and then five hundred thousand dollars payment comes in if you just hundred sixty three thousand of which nord all directed that eighteen thousand nine hundred dollars or thereabouts be allocated to this project and where did the judge make the air has to be read in conjunction with the designation of project absolutely otherwise it wouldn't make any sense in the abstract because you wouldn't release your other projects for example short if you had absolutely otherwise have a contractor again and last position would always look back at a at a supplier supply at several public projects look into their books and save i find that you find you've got a hundred thousand but you have not released that correct well it's this conditional release it's based on some of a hundred ninety eight thousand right and it doesn't contemplate a have we only care there is no no common law claim against bar no certainly no stake a claim or a mechanic's lien the only claim possible is the federal miller act and as such even though the language seems to be a little to determine how baa's money is spent nor dollars always going to make sure it has to steve's other projects that are not miller act projects or p h p first that's not the way and you know apply here to these we should get credit for that which is the hundred and fifty nine thousand dollars that i showed you before and that other chart we should get credit for that and this time period that then reverse the conditional release it's clearly was money that are coming to these guys it's not like there's somebody isn't aware of it or we don't know what's going on if you if your decision is that normal gets to determine how the money is distributed that would be grossly unfair to the general contractor because from here on forward after you make that decision in the ninth circuit the supplier is going to make sure that all the time on the jobs are paid first and the general contractors will end up have argued that that's and are in all of our papers all we did for the purposes of the reply is we just separated that out to make it a little better so you could understand that we were trying to we try to