loaded and off loaded in forty five minutes i when that ship came into port that meant the linens that were headed to nova scotia for those passengers down to nova scotia ron boy as well as a change of one is for that shipment return from nova scotia to portland that was done seven days a week for twenty one consecutive weeks and the season ran for two seasons out of propose spy seasons as expected the winds were turned roughly on a three day basis meaning they were  long as you fill the contract the other country doesn't care what is done with the winds that are on the ship our point is that this is a front loaded contract in which the costs and expenses were incurred in the first two years with a five year payback when steel and the ship owner he's here saying if if there is no direct relationship it has to pay me physically delivered but if there is a direct relationship it doesn't have to be so long as the items are sufficient we foreseeable or something like context in which the party to whom it would be physically delivered fully understood that i mean what would be the limiting principle there listen suggest that you know if it doesn't get there it's not deliberate and therefore it's not within to be you're saying that somehow this case is different and that i'm trying to figure out what is the limiting principle so that it's not just you know anything that one that eventually will get fact on the ship at one point yes if there's no risk that it's going to sell way with the necessaries because they're not on the bill so it's the security and the mass of the vessel the value of the vessel which gives everyone and the judge  question what is why do you need a leader in this circumstance since the vessel was able to sail with or without the winners and i don't think that's the proper analysis i think the proper analysis is at the time of the need which is what the lien was designed to vessel that will ship that undertake but i think a force of the question is the thing that's unusual about a ship compared to any business that might go under is that this ship without going under can sail away so the when the ship sails away you're out of luck in a way that the ordinary contracting party with the business if i'm correct people in this case the fact that we're dealing with a ship is irrelevant to the injury you're suffering the the aspect of the plane which implicated in the future of it being a ship it is that this type of need i had to be fulfilled in a very unique way and that unique way is part and parcel of the shipping industry which is you know they could have taken whether the the idea of the lead is about the goods being on the ship and selling ways i can't get those goods or is about dealing with the contracting parties can go away so i can deal with their contracting protocols if it's the la then there's more force to their argument which is when the contract contemplates lots of goods being procured for provision and the rest i'm dealing with somebody you can sail away means that i'm going to be stuck with those good and and a fundamental part of the point in this the contract so i think the claim was always right breached the charter and maybe the ship had an obligation by and we got a lead at that point in time and that's how it but admitted at trial well it's just in boys is it some of the items in the invoice were associated with this contract then the entire bill says and we had all those numbers and saying we paid one ninety five to buy stuff with the ship but with the ship they're not yes is that he wants to that's the absolutely ok but you also say even if the rule is they don't have to be on the ship to be delivered absolutely ok and if the rule is that they don't have to be on the ship to be deliver is being used only to try to look at this report didn't find any of those facts just report was asked to whine recognize that they were disputed and declined to make the findings post thank you read on the law they couldn't be right on the facts sheets and the specialty carts and at that point time i think people would be on notice or course would be on notice that you need to try that case and need to try that case carefully with respect to the damages side  that i think is the inherent protection but to go to the fundamental question judge one framed it and he said that's why i think these other components the factual pieces are kind of red herrings i've never seen a brief which spent eight pages the analysis of those but the transfer to forty to forty two said these were special the items purchased for this particular need the need of the vessels what control the purchase the specialty items these items were offered to the ship owner when that ship was ready to sail said take them and i think the