originally was like project that was a possibility under the joint venture going that the cyber head decided that it did not want to manufacture the shelters for allied fiber and decline and that project in mexico d asked by that time because of sight so you're to perform under the green that was was desperate for work your client customers mention i'm not quite sure what to make of the notes that follow where it's actually talking about the show through not explain why the way the district court handled this in light of the shown over agreeing that or on the verdict form that actually said one way or another you know if if your client had to i guess rely on that before they could say that saber hand been in breach by not providing counsel me ask you about the two million plus in damages an awful lot of evidence was given to the jury and i think you may have had some document though i haven't seen it yet it's referred to in closing argument that maybe broke to what we do that but it doesn't mean that the jury at least made an error but they also had evidence of much more damages in that that would be relevant for tour so where are we what do you have that would support using something that to me is charged with coming up with a with a number that would compensate him excess for the damages it had incurred on her for the negligent misrepresentation he may argue that none of the evidence supports tort damages that's fine we can hear that but this question of when the fury i think fairly clearly has picked a number that is not that just for an award that they ended up  why can't we just up hold it because there's evidence of more than two million dollars of portman's because they didn't they considered those tort damages and it's obvious they rejected all of them and for jury room and wait for some sort of discussion among the judge and then the counsel as to whether they had any objections how did it play out after this came in and add to the verdict writing after that i guess my my but criticism my question on the reason for my question is were you given an opportunity to know the consistency in the verdict you know liability for seventeen million euro gave us three mid so i don't know that there's got to be some specific amount in the evidence that the jury has to adopt a they have a huge amount of discretion on damages i just don't economic damage there was no general damage suffered by saber i mean by him excels you would argue that for a misrepresentation of misrepresentation that it does have are the photos so you cannot do venture agreement was handled for the jury it does seem to me that whether a module acts to keep the approach that allowed on the joint venture agreement a given notice a certain period time to cure and whatever else which is written in terms of that would give them the right to terminate whether plied to whether your client breached at all if they don't exercise that right if module x does not exercise that right and seems to me to be a legal question about what the contract me give me your take on what the jury what guidance the jury was given as to how to readers could begin to find despite all this and by fining two million dollars with down just so they must of thought your client did something wrong they still found no that's the way the kind of action target it i want to know what would have given the jury any guidance on on that reasoning my recollection and i have to go back but is that the jury instructions provided basic contract given and then it was between mr macmichael and myself to argue with that provision and of course then the j j b agreement as an exhibit and so we used it then exhibit metalanguage and we all did it the breach of saber and the way the contract was set up you had a three month period where say was supposed to give them access seventy five dollars units seventy fan of the shelters for the  three months it's clear we we met bad and that was from may to july may june july august september october there's a question about whether or not we met ben we probably did dispute about attorneys fees awarded your client yes that touch on the bass disparity between the hours sabers attorneys billed in the hours bill by on the breach of contract and which was decided by summary judgment of the board he said and yet you got up whole lot of deference from the judge on these you know interconnected or common common facts or something that you  depositions taken there was over one hundred thousand pages of documents produced we did get a special sammy judgment but in addition to that at trial we had to defend against them excesses claims we have to defend breach which was the subject of the summary judgment partial summary judgment ruling that judge it by all the other clients that it made were rejected some of those were breach  there was or sure how much many hours your attorneys put in on this i thought there was something in the record indicating several one thousand hours but maybe sixty percent of the number of hours that  contract negotiations about its power needs in the future though was relied almost statements and as a result bill typo or calling it specifically to to address and service gulf states needs for power it turns out that those projections were all that gulf states didn't need the power that would be generated by the