because that phrasing should be interpreted in the context of the larger document itself that is within the four corners of the document so why to include the time period of one dollar to seventeen july term include is open and it doesn't say limited to it doesn't say including this but excluding anything else it says to  seventeen july two thousand and sixteen that's the only time period is intended to be included well maybe you can sell that somewhere i mean isn't that the more logical reading is that the government was worried that since they were agreeing to terminated early client might come back to them for some kind of claim for the period that it had originally agreed to be to because of the ninety determination clause so they want to make it clear that this waiver included post termination plain and when it it's a pretty standard release clause that outs on i mean this is in almost every government contract that you know where you have some kind of determination agreed germination or the li is add on to a specific thing emphasising that it includes this person owes terminations period as well i don't see how that makes it and playing it it just makes it more specific well i believe your honor that if looking at for example the transcripts from the board proceedings certainly there was some confusion with never seeing as to what the phrasing names it wasn't intuitively obvious at the moment the question was positive one point to captain rolands what does at the the plain language of this and see whether it is indeed played and i know it was her not so the fact that one of the government counsel may have believed one day they certainly changed their position or the reply brief at the board i think you know it may be a fortunate that this is the way it occurred but again isn't this a standard relief was released cos i mean everything up into that last phrase looks like something i've seen hundreds of times and then it out on a specific area i don't know how making it more specific it somehow much of that to forty still contains future lost profits i don't have down to a dollar he said i mean i didn't see it in the record sorry i interrupted you i don't have it down to dollars and cents your honor i what i will say is i believe that that whether it's limited to this time period or not and what the intention was the parties conference call and the appellant declined that offer the bulk of the claim was for future lost sales so in the in the papers before the board the  appellant adjust with their probably hard to win they're the ones that are out for the early termination i mean i know the thought none of us before but i mean it does seem like there's a little bit of this is a very contracting officer did was to deny any some six hundred and twenty four thousand which was loss of future sales and the twenty nine thousand were for what were termed build out cost so this language is plain it is not in the us and it helen's argument that the effective date of the relief of the release was only for a brief seventeen period is not reasonable it's not supported that was offered you're not going to use this release language to turn around and say we should at a given you the twenty nine thousand dollars right yes and it's our position with respect to the final decision there is certainly authority that if the government entertains a claim following a general release that vitiates to release that this was not an issue raised before the board and it's not in their opening brief this argument is wa can we just ask you one d more time yes i think you've already answered this but then you muddy the waters if a woos yes you've given them a final decision awarding them roughly twenty nine thousand dollars are you going to pay that money or are you now going to use our decision here in the board's decision to say you're not even entitled to join in that twenty thousand dollars well your honor i believe that the result is in light of the fact that they decided to challenge this and they turned down that offer yes they didn't they did nothing that's inappropriate result well how is that  i don't understand how just as a matter of law that's correct with this decision issued after this a bit event and release it prior to that event and they turned it down and then you and if you come up here and say we want to take the twenty nine thousand it was offered to us on a golden platter i'm leaving it with i certainly will not sit on your honor i own fortunately will say something that there seems to be a little bit of a logic trap which is that yes that offer was made after this language was signed and then the question becomes if that offer was made after this was  or stood well certainly i appreciate the court's time and i think thank you very much