under the contract touched on the circle errors include a misunderstanding of the relationship between section one hundred and seven answer and one person at the substantial compliance standard thought i thought this was liability without fault and many of the circle cases the destruction of the substances that give rise to the litigation occurred many years ago when it was a perfectly lawful permissible discharge before and it was before the environmental laws of the seventy's where you can passed into law i don't really understand the emphasis on seattle passively holding threw all the claims together in one pot instead of st addressing the one i was seven i strict liability elements and only then turning to the applicable aspect on the contributions side he just put right seattle times incurred nearly five million dollars in costs to clean up the property and so it did satisfy about standard and that was how we're going to cost incurred those costs we seattle times directly paid literally incurred and we provided the dictionary that was the case well i'm just curious as to whether that means the definition or the one of yes they stipulated that the cost incurred were necessary and by a plain meaning definition of incur disputes and there was substantial mary is no more than one hundred page feasibility study analyzed multiple alternative alternative to was an agreed order i the washington state department because so was in the state of washington but it wasn't good enough for the district court here that well they only consider one as we just skip to your nd set of arguments that are based on the contract and moved away from the circular argument go back to operator liability because that's an important part of the appeal ok but i'll just jump to that right now again when it comes to know i would have i would have no trouble with your argument it would seem quite compelling to me if we were if you want a summary judgment but since we're reviewing a trial verdict findings  his landlord did and when we were reviewing for clear ever i wonder if that's enough to save the district court's conclusion on whether rick should be treated as an operator look at the district court's reasoning is and you have no control over the science urns on that was this language or over the dump truck that cannot be squared the holding that whether care itself is an operator and twenty that's the text on excerpts of record and if you look at page twenty four you actually east side by side what was the calmest rosabel and what was the constant actually and there's a stark differen how our position is simply that there was substantial compliance on my own approved by the state department of ecology and considered multiple alternatives well what i ask you we have one more argument there your argument your honor and that's harmless error standard what substantial compliance needs is that immaterial deviations are are are not a barrier to liability and so then you would need to ask did some other alternative then actually used but that would require us to reverse the district court now if we if we want to long with the district court decision in did not reapers it entirely understandable that we would have done so and we will give you a chance to respond thank you so much ok so the burden here is the court fired right the court did indicate that it was only looking at this allocation under a he could get hurt and regardless of the burden the evidence is correct me if i'm wrong you're saying that even if the district judge made a mistake he should have said that there was a good claim for under circle under one of seve require you to ignore two important things at the same time it would require this court to ignore the rest of the judgment all except for paragraph b and it would require the court to ignore an entire having trouble following the answer you're telling me there's a whole lot of laws that explains why the times is not appropriate when party against the other care despite winning the money judgment against him but you haven't told me what the la playing on the base of the jet that triggers the next inquiry and under grist which is also cited with approval in the douglas case that the times relies on the next inquiry that seattle times argued that you can't very well say that wasn't the operator is landlord was without also saying whether care wasn't the operator the landlord was so it's inconsistent logically inconsistent to let rid off the off and keep leather care on it's got to be there both on the hook or both off the hook what is the matter with that argument  to taking the real estate where the dry cleaner operated this is the facility then why then letter care would have to be exonerated with so so you're not and here are the difference facilities so that it just means the pickup truck on the side sewers and not the real estate where the dry cleaner operated and your honor that is what the district court  any other liability he says there's a then this is important to relieve the courts on each other operator cases where individual corporate officers were down personally like might have been and they were think you i thought we were  so under washington law he's entitled to attorney's fees against touchstone and it seems pretty straightforward and i don't quite understand why he's not a prevailing party against touchstone because he also me with the time clock because i'm just totally on the phone i don't have any video at all ok so please continue counsel thank you seeing any amount of one million forty six thousand four hundred and seventy two dollars i had a little feedback to do i did of course hear my last point i have a question about the  that there were two separate claims there were two separate judgments there were two separate party terminations in touchstones paper and two separate viewing words and the one given to touchstone from seattle times was and the dumptruck is not consistent with their own stipulation or with the circle itself or with the state a colony agreed order which considered the entire property to be a consolidate and if you have any questions about if you can escape liability if you dump e c e down someone else's dream i urge the court to look at a district court case we cited lincoln properties from a judge levy in the eastern district of california untouched to try to go back to these contract issues the touchstone has been very clear the only reason they wanted to go to a different location was to avoid construction please and that is definition of incremental cost and judges only recognize that and not giving them up premium for saturday delivery and essentially is asking here is a delivery excuse me a premium for delivering to back to the discussion i have a chance fletcher earlier about which was actually cheaper here of certain is that it was cheaper to go to and i cheat but that's not what the invoices to seattle times demonstrates