failing to enter judgment as a matter of law in favor of john deere at the time of the terminations caster was in breach of it's an essential timely payment obligation and there was no evidence to the contrary the circumstances that he was late during the course of the their relationship because john deere would know when there was a time to payment take actions like for example john deere the  committed itself a great ship the agreement in the in i guess it was some verse when it wouldn't approve the sale of a major piece of equipment if the jury reasoned that way and wouldn't they be able to find that the timely payment itself wasn't the reason for the termination i think not your honor and the reason for that is that first of all the there's a difference between in breach in the contract so one way or the other parties performance that the other party then is inevitably in breach solely because of that impairment and i can't imagine that you could then seize on that breach which you yourself caused as then grounds for terminations well now that assumes that there was a breach into some sort of you and i and i your honor i don't agree because i believe that the language of law seventy five breach that only should but my question is what if the manufacturer caused by it's really caused the dealer to breach well you know and i think the evidence in this case was not that i'm just asking you to quell do you agree or disagree that if in fact going to one side whether it occurred if in fact your client precipitated a breach that would otherwise not have occurred by its own breach net revenue to the other side wouldn't have been anywhere near enough to put them in a position to make timely payment that is correct and what's the evidence that shows that what was the value of that equipment well the evidence that it was two minutes before the  to comply with its internal geisha and i think the fact that they had the money in forty eight hours to come up with a payment makes clear that it wasn't an issue of having problems getting the cash to make time of the reasons for the termination establish the orse of dealings of the parties of payments in light of market conditions or prove a pretext for the terminations second tier did not mov competing expert testimony who to believe and this court has a cell that absent any objections as here the accuracy of calculations of damages is for the jury third and perhaps even more are absolute wrong or puerto rico not failure to pay is just false without more goes then judge bryer in the biomedical case held the matter is not so simple there was interfering with consequential ability to comply with the allegations that they were not up to speed with the contract but the payments were continually being made but the thing is your honor that the allegation that there has made here haskell's theory that the value of the line two thousand and nine which was higher based on the miserable evidence than the value of the line in two thousand and thirteen could be used as a benchmark for the term in the diminished value of the line because of the dollars and the theory that was alleged in the complaint and based on the evidence presented at trial was that in two thousand and nine the year had an intention twelve i recall in december they were breaching the agreement so this actually limitations ran on two of the line was worthless the jury the term and the lying was worth one point four million in two thousand and nine the affirm the verdict and order a partial new trial solely on the nose telling or certify the issue through the supreme court reporter under law seventy five that was the ruling of this record and there was no money for a separate law on this record on that route was there some evidence that there had been prior occasions very little prior occasions where they did not make timely payment