with respect to the substantive elements in burden of proof as defraud in in so doing the core in reviewing this issue the lower court under as is required the comparison between law and the commonwealth of massachusetts the farm state in the law of the state of virginia in so doing the lower court then did make the conclusion that there were substantive differences that were material respect to the application of fraud jurisprudence from the state of maryland in the principles of fraud from the commonwealth of massachusetts trial and there was a verdict and there was no will fifty motion after the verdict was handed in so under our normal rules we don't review twelve b six or rule fifty dollars denials there water over the dam once you've had a trial and we don't roll sufficient review sufficiency the evidence issues unless there's a whole fifty motion made after the jury  i raise it is a motion them in a which was denied and then i raised it following the arguments of counsel in the submission and at the time of the instructions by the court to the jury and then you have had i don't think you've appealed one of the jury instructions so unless the jury was instructive wrongly on the law and you objected to that instruction we just i'm having trouble seeing what it is for us to  we just don't take academic questions about choice a lot we have to anchor them in some particular rule and i understand your honor i i believe that the the issue was preserved when i injected to the judge's instructions on the law for the law on fraud and i'm not arguing against a sufficiency of the evidence based on the way the court instructed the jury the court having overruled my objection to the choice of our decision that applied in the case we where in your blue brief do you challenge the jury instructions objecting the choice of law ruling that the court had made at the outset or not at the outset that during summary judgment and that it had continued to follow throughout  case i believe that i had preserved my objection to that decision as it as it continued to be present in the way the trial unfolded through the jury statements that sub contractors had in fact paid what all of the subcontractors also located in massachusetts or alternatively was that the work that the sub contractors i don't think you say there was to any law you just have a different cake on how the analysis should be performed but it's hard for given that the trial court made virtually no evaluation of the maryland interest in the case bush didn't require as well as the restatement require a comparative analysis and evaluation of the in st of the respective jurisdictions and in so doing growing up once a approach massachusetts by far has the strongest interest and it's implicit in that notion massachusetts has the strongest interest is a statement that the other state's law is not as strong well your honor the court never did say massachusetts has a strong it's interest it just reaches conclusion without that kind of character and i think that the duty and again this was not a decision that was a discretionary decision it's a legal decision and i think the ruling necessitates that  state were compelling i think the massachusetts interest on the basis of all eight where the contract was performed is outweighed by the interest of massachusetts top contractors who weren't paid and wasn't that the underlying basis for their pride because a representation was that made that they had been paid but  massachusetts have a strong interest in seeing that sub contract practice ok dade and the state are paid and that process statements are not made as to massachusetts respect to the nature and circumstances of their pain or nonpayment that record just show that there is non payment to their subcontractors but they were paid to the extent of the  therefore by injecting them into the calculus here i would suggest to the court becomes suspect and beyond what the records parks and really  remedy you are seeking is what that the two things one review denote the decision on the choice of law and conclude that as a matter of law on this  age associates l l c having heard the questions of the court i will be very brief i believe that the lower court correctly determined under the conflict of laws standard in the commonwealth of massachusetts that the law of fraud in the commonwealth applied to this case the judge made a very careful evaluation he went through a series of six different factors which he used to determine whether the law of maryland new york issue has been properly preserved and presented to this court the rule crowd motion is gone the summary judgment motion is gone so the st that there's presented on appeal although it isn't argued that way conceding that we can reach all of these questions i am not conceding anything your honor i believe the i did not i did not iran i did not honor i did not argue the point that he has not filed the appropriate motions or made the appropriate objections at the trial  i'm secretary has clarified what that footnote means i'm trying to figure out what was done at the bench that we could possibly view it as preserving remember i know that the counsel for the appellant made a number of objections during the course of the trial as normally would i don't remember he been objecting to the instructions that the judge made so so i believe that the case has been decided as the judge stated in his decision a reasonable jury could determine that the passion knew or should have known that the statements he was signing were not true all that occurred he was the only person in massachusetts for this project for bridge for the blue waters dredging company he was here on a daily basis he admitted in his depositions he admitted to trial that some contractors told him they were not getting paid and requested his aid in getting them paid he knew in december when he signed that form that they were not paid and that induced age to age to advance another three hundred thousand dollars so all the elements of fraud were proven the jr and the jury made its decision i don't believe there was any error by the lower court in its determination concludes the arguments for today this session of the honorable united states court of appeals has now recessed is now recess until the next session of the court god save the united states of america and this honorable court counsel you may disconnect from