took solution has not carried its considerable burden of proof on that issue it still has not presented to the court any specific competent evidence that it had the right to bring the underlying action against my client co in particular i took solutions has not established that it had the right to sell the software that's at issue in this case instead it is owned by a company called i text technology didn't the district cor not involved here it depends on the outcome not bad contract question so you're going to have to help me but i have a very hard time seeing why standing is  contract and on the novo review which this court has on standing issues just as a court could review the contract itself rather than send it to a jury under that contract there is no right for i took solutions to sell that they have the standing to claim that they had the product but i do know they they could make whatever claim they like but they didn't have any standing under their own documentation in other words there was something called the investment framework agreement that identif that cannot be because i took sick knowledge of another company have those rights so essentially i took solutions was trying to assert the legal rights of another party and underworlds herself and in other cases even if the  standing to make that argument they could be wrong on the merits but as doesn't the fact that they're a part of the contract give them the standing to make it it's not like they're in these other cases where somebody is not a party to a contract coming in and saying hey i have been for civil right here maybe there's a standard issue in that circumstance but as a party to the contract you're just disputing whether that contract and condition was met or not but this is actually now only just a few the cases your honor because one of them was an assignment case what i took to saying it in the contract was i had been given the right spy the owner to sell you the software but they were the party to the country no doubt that they were the party of the contract or any case in which a party to the contract is held to have not doesn't have article three standing to assert rights and claims under the next issue which is under the master agreement there were damages awarded by the jury in a mound of eight hundred seventy two thousand dollars as a court may appreciate the verdict form did not break it down but counsel have agreed that called as i was not yet until i know but including the date gives rise to the whole argument that you've got to address which is that it's definitely the case that they conclude it was not terminated at that time but that doesn't foreclose the possibility that the jury could have concluded it was terminated in some other way so what's your answer to that we submit that it does preclude such a finding your honor for the following reason after december th two thousand provision which is what they awarded damages under disappears as you know no more affection because a contract was terminated the judge agreed opposing counsel agreed that's right the floor and then says you skip it to because the instructions told them to skip that question and they had to split the question because the termination agreement makes that x a provision fade away there's no need for it anymore so there was no dispute about that at trial in fact the only reason we agreed to the insertion of the question about whether there was a really entry into the business was counsel said that's advisory only just so i followed as a i mean just not be tracking it violation of the form of the argument that we made on which to form a space so it was incumbent upon the district court to fix that error we were concerned about the coming but very thing happened and i'm sorry so here are an appeal really we conclude that the jury would necessarily have been sharing the assumption that you all had been constructing the jury verdict i don't think we need to get there ya know and that's the point in other words the jury did what the jury did and they fell the former point consistently you're contesting the verdict form itself and saying the district court should have made it clear or your honor should just stated that another way what we're saying is once that emmis came back and we make over the fifty motion the judge sort of should have said  such a motion we did you are yes i see my time is up so thank you the question on standing is did the district court error in summary judgment that's what comes up in summary judgment on a rule fifty said motion and what the court said is this is not standing but even if it is even if it is came across some cases that are precisely on point we didn't address in their briefs our view is it's not a standing order in but it's irrelevant the outcome would have been the same the district court did not care whether it was standing or not at summary judgment because to on the verdict form and this very issue was put to judge burroughs in the post trial motions and she categorically rejected this view this reading of the verdict which makes what the jury was the understanding of the part about these questions such that prior to the rule of the motion their contention is that everybody unsuccessful we hereby exercise our rights under the master agreement acknowledging that it continues to exit the business that's so you have to look at what happened on december  understood with the judge just pressing that it was not intended to be read that way and so that is there because now that we all see that the jury read it differently than we thought it w i what i said was there was discussion about twenty three and three a collective the really and what they meant and sort of separating those out i think is a little difficult intended to mean that it should now be corrected i mean i i can't i can't speak for the brief i mean i think maybe my brother will answer that on in his rebuttal i don't think it was made with that specificity making that finding and i would submit that she didn't pursue it is well supported by the evidence and you know it is there is a way to read you're supposed to read the verdict in a way that makes sense and she says you can read this verdict in a way that business i answered it's actually simpler than that your honor it's terminated it and that's the end of the actual provision that's the point if you develop we terminated the xor provision doesn't continue any longer no objection from counsel that was the basis on which the your opponent on whether because we really should be pressing you did this argument about there having been a prior agreement about the content of the verdict for which the jury's verdict reveals to have been and the state can understand they have but the are you having percent of that argument just didn't address it i did as a judge addressed to your honor by saying that she thought that the jury found that we did not valid through terminate the cream and your contention that's just not responsive to the argument that you think you made that's correct or in that that was a or yes do you have  for the idea that because you were under a misapprehension about what the verdict form meant bed no one ever caught that after a really complicated long trial in which the jury sent you the whole thing and go through you're making a separate argument that once that happens though you still can win because that one of the rules of the verdict from them meant something that no one intended it to me none of the parties intent i tell me you made that argument separately something like this thrown of but i would have to disagree with the premise because i thought we i think all the parties agree that we're doing something right so i don't i don't test your question i do not have a case that says that but i see my time is up if i may just briefly address two things quickly aryan testified that the owner of the software was a company called six g m b h there's nothing in the record other than his testimony to support that and his testimony is directly contradictory to the statement that  to perform under the agreement they didn't issue invoices they didn't detail who the workers were they didn't show the work was actually done moreover when the jury rendered their orders they did not even follow the contract they did not deduct five hundred and