conscience we understand that the decision made by the district court in this case is something similar to that it's a decision where the district board of used this discretion we understand that the district board incurred in an perhaps would be harmless error in the sense that you can't under the false claims act just claim the full value of the contract you have to show under the cases as i understand it the more you want to collect the liable is liable three times the amount of damages that the united states this estates right but the damages are not one hundred and thirty five thousand dollars that you claim are the damages and you never made any effort to show that there was a difference in the value been received every call what happened hey we understand that this could apply to this case with regards to the amount of money was given to the contractor in this case based on their files or representation and forty one it's from the us from the south in district of new york actually and it's based on the false claims act back in the day when it was still i understood that it was not trouble damages it was double damages and i had a different type of contract price we're asking for that number to be paid back three dollars times and we understand your honor that when we look back at the procedural history of this case which we describe in our brief preach on conference in the light bulb went off at some point did you really properly attend the issue of damages did you get specific with the judges to what you wanted to do in which your damaged theory at least at this point was yes your honor we discussed with the judge and this was an issue that was brought to the court in our request to amend the pretrial conference when we go back to the pretrial conference report with did you give the judge an we gave that we filed a motion to leave to amend the pretrial report and that was filed i understand it was filed in on january the original fraud damages which is the treble damages and the other one was consequential damages and then we discussed with the court we understand that ever since this complaint was filed treble damages was always  well it says as opposed to a measure of damages as to what you contracted it were in which you didn't get which is a different theory of damages well we understand your honor that that that's obviously the  e position which is we need to scrunch whether we received the goods or not but we understand that we were going to prove that we that we were induced by false representation to pay this full amount and if they wanted and this was one of their affirmative defenses and i answered the complaint whether they delivered certain types of products in fact the mr garcia which is one of the defendants talked about and it's an appendix page number four or eleven he talks about how on amount of barrels or grams of product that they delivered that was all the evidence that was submitted to the jury and the hurt is evidence but we were not allowed to ask the jury to make a determination as to those damages because the me i can't explain dot com in the the the use of on the internet brotherhood was only used in the context of the warranty process to determine whether or not there was something wrong with night in that your complaint was that you got a product that was different from the original card and in the way it was different was that it didn't have this fifteen year warranty right exactly exactly so basically there never proposed a theory of dummy just based on the fact that the corn should this regard any value that could be attributed to the actual work that was performed by  transpired and if we were to be provided with notice of our new damaeus theory which was never briefed and which have to bear in mind that as far as i understand there's no set then it's clear that they didn't presented damages theory that sought to calculate the difference between the value of what was provided almost promised and never asked for that but they did ask to get the return of the entire contract price that theory existed in the complaint you were on notice of that is that a viable damages theory under the false claims that we understand and if we i don't have any more time but if i can answer the question th years after ok thank you that's what the record shows yeah we understand that that's what the record shows that day and that is that i am just in charge and between the two of them having trouble so there was a contract product that they contracted or are that the product really didn't come with a bargepole clarify that question what occurred was the contract was entered into talk two thousand and ten i understand it was a may based on a false representation of fifteen year product warranty they signed a contract and i understood that if anything happened for fifteen years that would come so what i would curse after a year or two is start seeing a water leak they start asking them to honor the warranty and when they start coming to honor the warranty that's when they applied the product again but then it did not fix the problem and then he returned with a new product and he admitted in trial that he was trying to apply the product but it wasn't working and then he applied the new product but our client stated that they found out about that after it was applied and then he admitted it and this is what occurred they sue in state  and in state court he admitted that the warranty did not exist and one of the issues that was brought before the jury was that he reached his duty because he was an exclusive distributor of this product and he had to get that warrant the by comply with certain forms of the manufacture and he admitted in court that he never did that and when he made that he basically admitted that his representation of the fifteen year warranty was actually never existed it never since the complaint your honor says the complaint is in appendix page twenty three dollars it's been stating that we want a full contract price one hundred and thirty five thousand times three hundred and forty five thousand dollars it has been stated there and they've been duly notified for more than three years and we talked to the judge about this and we told them look the fraud damages are there it's been there all the time but we were wondering whether we should try to talk about consequential damages which is the reparations and when you on if you look at going to trial or you look at all the evidence that cited there and the testimony that evidence was going to stay the same the documentary evidence was going to stay the same we're not going to add new evidence we're going to use the same witnesses but the judge did not