so your client was providing transportation services to the to the government correct yesterday and once the trailers were loaded transported in unloaded did the that tension with power units which is with a tractor and detention without power which is without a tractor and then return of those empty traders back to the people or the custody of well it provider out of the three treasures would be turned over to fema and then once they were in famous custody they would be organically transported to the location where th and the responsibility of thema d l a will report daily to the carrier the location of the trailer and then your return of empty trailers would be trailer arrives at the feeling that destination is a have a reasonable time within which to lower it whatever that may be during that period i suppose you could say the goods are stored in the a problem because if it doesn't conflict that then it sounds as though you see it for that purpose is a breach well i'm not sure i understand the court's position as it relates to how the carrier would be aware of that if the track it's the same or the agency has custody of your appointment and then just not notify you pick up the equipment and you don't know what they're doing with it except that they have it under a solicitation and a bill of lading that they're allowed to have when you knew that the trailers arrived at their destination and were being on longer right we knew that they arrived at their destination it was on the stand it on the bill of lading organic movement until the material on the treasurer related were provided about being so why performance you delivered the goods you had detention with a power unit where you were unloading like you reference you had detention without a power unit where you dropped a trial or full of material and then you had a pick up  if you don't have a power you know and it's i try to without a tractor then you don't really have the ability to move it or provide you the customer provide a tractor to transport the material on it to a honor there was an offer to pay fifty thousand dollars in take it or leave it and there was no negotiation i'm sorry say that again it was an offer by the contracting agent to that they would pay fifty thousand dollars for both lines and general counsel for one of the parties to happen ladies parties warnings to include i'm sorry the council wanted to include a general counsel letter of which was an argument as the government think it can rather the government has never taken the position in this case that under no circumstances would sheridan have been entitled to some form of compensation as a result of the movement of these trailers the issue though is whether sharon has timely asserted such a claim and it's the government's position as has been found by all three but it is straight of levels below that have reviewed the issue that the claim was untimely asserted because it was asserted well more than three years after the government your honor i don't believe that's correct sharon could not have asserted such a claim until it was notified of the return pickup location of the trailers the only obligation sheridan had under the terms of the contract was to deliver the trailers loaded with the soldiers rations once it did so and it dropped off those trailers in louisiana from that moment forward it knew it had a potential claim that was accruing as of that point in time but it was still accrual generally is defined as the delivery of the goods the completion of the delivery and in this case the trailers were delivered why shouldn't the w because your honor first of all it's clear from the language of the contract itself and the underlying regulations that what the parties contemplated here for any detention that might have occurred was something of a you would know that the jewish reclaim took them were claim off that you would not know the amount of the detention i'm not aware of cases in which there is a new contractual charge for each day and yet you have to sue before those days because the act has occurred the detail of the amp has not occurred there are eight hundred days worth of acts that have not occurred until the eight hundred eighty eight hundred each day it occurs so why can't they reach back from whenever they present their claim and with that the summer may or something of twenty thirty three years well your other third are a couple of reasons why first sharing cannot give just one thing but if you are not defending the hoards rationale that first of all your honor at no time before any of the c b c s g s a were d l a or before this court had shared and transportation never taken the position that this is some sort of continuing claim that there's a three year sliding window of time in which you could assert a claim and so it can reach back three years even if the can't reach back to day one its position has always been its claim didn't accrued no portion of its claim ever accrued until contracts some have made under its auspices and is this such a contract potentially or rather this may be an agency interpretation of the underlying detention regulations  e court would afford some deference to yes but my point was only that this was not a document that specifically referenced as incorporated in the contract that you know one of the one of the arguments that you sort of  by truck is that regulation referenced in the contract you know he runs ok so to seem to be relying on some legal materials agency issued materials that are not referenced in the contract which may or may not have some bearing on the contract so why is that regulation somehow relevant but now this agency interpretation  contract is to allow the government to use the trailers in some other location to move them to another location and use them for storage try to erect is that a breach of contract to do that potentially it may have an  again that well why isn't that their claim that that was a breach as soon as the unloading was completed and the government moved the trailer to some other location and used it for storage well they certainly haven't framed it that way but potentially  honor they may have had such a claim that they could have asserted again though it brings you back to the question of timeliness of asserting self figuring out what they're claiming this is important because in the us we know what the claim is we don't know how to apply the statue of limitations for that claim i think you've heard from us some now that it can possibly be that the claimant cruden upon the delivery to the destination before the unloading was completed but why isn't doesn't the claim accrue when a reasonable time for unloading has been completed or when the trailer is moved to some other entirely new location for storage purposes is your other that is as says that the government is entitled to up to shipment cannot be charged more than ten hours of potential per day it's six of in terms of hours the actual detention rate that was agreed to in the contract is an hourly rate not a daily rate or a monthly rate and the underlying regulation that the court reference moments ago defines detention as a delay and occurs in the loading or unloading of a trailer no no i'm sorry it says delayed in the re agreed time to load or unload i had i'm not sure i see an agreed time you get two hours free the contract clearly contemplates more time because you otherwise you wouldn't have the rate for that in an hourly basis seems to make clear that the parties were contemplating that should a detention occur at all you're going to be talking about detention of a limited duration of a few hours usually a day or two should one also couple it with with this a tandem document issued by the agency that says detention ends when you tell them to come pick it up that may be when the detention ends your honor but that doesn't that doesn't mean that that is when the claim for the detention accrued because again here your honor it's important remember that for one of these know what your highness your honor like to say two things to that one is that you certainly can because as to one of the two trailers in this case sharon did exactly that it submitted a detention claim shortly after it initially dropped the that trailer off for a five day period of time that related to the diversion of that one trailer well yeah but they didn't make a claim for the detention that occurred after it was dropped off at the destination at that point and hypothetical let's assume the trailer circumstance they bring the trailer the wheezy and it's got the stuff in it and somebody down there says don't unload it here take it to texas and off it goes rather there has been a detention there has drum they were out for every day of the tension well there's government that is there's been a detention that has occurred from the moment that the carrier takes the trailer to the original destination that was in the contract document where it was supposed to go from that moment when it's dropped after that location the detention has occurred now kerry might not in a scenario like this where the other the country like the in that hypothetical where the trail or the it arrives its destination and the government says no actually we need that trailer twenty miles away move that around twenty miles away and i'm one of them in the period that was the was i think obviously the carrier is entirely on the some compensation now the only way in which we can present the claim was based upon the contract rights which we were subjected to and that was a basis  by saying the contract in front of this is for storage of the breach the breach began as soon as any outside reasonable period for unload him had movements which is on the p b s page forty nine it says that any movement of the treasurer from the initial destination for will be transported in the responsibility as an organic movement performed and controlled by fema so i would submit to you that the solicitation contemplated longer than just a regular loaded loan well you know the words they might move it to a new location or carry right but not that they would use it for storage well i don't think storage is adequately addressed in the sewer station there are it's contemplated that these suppliers would be staged in an area so i'm not standing here trying to justify the ten million dollar claim in its entirety but to completely refused to pay anything for their services that they received i think