submitted a number of issues to the court and we would rethink the all american course consideration but i'd like to start st with an issue that waypoint believes is the decisive issue and that is the jury verdict on the jury verdict form once decided agreed after much discussion in the record between the court record and all the record chambers between the court and all the parts and it was decided that under this unique situation this particular jury verdict form would work with st just brief acts because they bear of course the entire thing this involves the retrofit of a high rise building pointer st just on the other side of loyola from an office building to at least partially a hotel the owner was white following the contractor was midway construction it was discovered there was a serious design problem involving the mechanical system c c d's construction change directives change orders were issued and team did the work and team was paid one clients sponsor this when was that final one million dollars payment made before or after the small soon file it was made after the lawsuit was filed before trial and it was made drizzly originally was in both tort and contract the suit was for one million three hundred thousand dollars and what was called a design related claim although originally team saw over five million dollars are over three million and contract ultimately team dropped its tort claim against waypoint so that we had even a more clear distinction between the tort suit against the designers and the contract suit against white boy and that is what led to a problem which needed a solution which this judge defined solution to the decider later claim was for all the same to have it's one other thing that was a separate contract only claim against white point which was also fully trial of this st verdict and the budget form it's question number ten has to do with unapproved change orders and contractual interests that separate contract claim for sixty five thousand dollars bill got approved change orders and another thirty eight thousand dollars for the interest total one hundred and three thousand dollars independently against my point so we're left with the designers claim white point contract claim this is a situation the court recognized immediately this led to the possibility of a double recovery and the court the court had to address that to handle the situation and even explained how it would be used this is what the court said the words of the court but i think we talked about just how difficult it is to apply and that's why this compromise was reached as far as the way the jury verdict forms were and because it was just i didn't hear any other suggestions about how to do it than what the a large said well if they're found in breach of contract the solution is there one hundred percent but then the courts say well this was talked about on sunday agree the plaintiffs that steam agreed to this jury verdict form based on that concept and there i don't hear your best suggestion about how we would do this nobody had won on sunday and i haven't heard one since then so that seems to be a practical solution that's in o not a june twenty two oh well now we'll all remember what we did your honor i don't remember the date but i do have the page number yeah i think i guess what i'm asking and it's important to me is that in that page number from the june t it well that's very helpful thank you the judge said if this jury finds that there is that equipment but no breach of contract and they assign a percentage of fault to lay one which is exactly what happened i point will not be liable for that percentage of the recovery but that percentage will reduce the amount that the other parties are responsible for if instead the jury finds there is negligence and breach of contract and the science of central falls away wife would be responsible for that percentage of the damages and section eight so what we have in this situation that's again are way three thousand six hundred and seventy three what we have in the situation is not something that happens in many other cases involving inconsistent verdicts where something unforseen happens what was morgan granted a new trial based on a motion for different purposes because she didn't talk about that if you didn't have the consistency in the assigning fault to a point but she may have forgotten but if you'll go back and read our briefs at the time we were black words on white paper screaming but this is what happened and this is what we're the court said would be the result if this happened  guess what a point there would have been no need for such a charge so the action would have to be no although clearly if there are damages in a construction project other parties to be responsible i would point the court and this very case to the fact that the department you have to look at the farm itself pressed some of the cases cited by team do not have a decisive decision on yes or no in fact mercer case president specifically says there is no general product that all special so i think you have to look at will i don't think the case law is a paralegal says you certainly have some cases in your favor when you think is the strongest case to say that if this is a general verdict it's too contractor is behind in time and that's exactly what happened and the owner does so without any liability to pay so it could well be that waypoint was responsible for the increased cost but has the viability for ok thank you if i may i'd like to go to the attorney's fees issue substantially provide all the corners readily provision this is a rather unique provision because it says special prevail rather than just prevail and the point is there is no mathematical way to give team and three thousand dollars if you back that equation of what was saw a person's progress received two seventeen percent there is no way mathematically that that is substantially prevailing and there's no case that would make any other rule applied and closing this is that unique case of tort and contract and that's what require special solution which this court came up with which all parties participated in agreed with no objection made given and not until this is all over the team change its fun and say well you know that verdict form just isn't right even though exactly what the judge said this if this happens x if that happens why that happened it was too late perform single dollar alleged by team in this case for damages and every single dollar that was recovered or warded to team was a dollar that was bowed to team under the contracts leaven separately certain clients that are presented to the jury you know those are the two issues that are at the heart of the case and are the crux of this appeal to the substantially prevailing party and whether any or all of these contracts and the damages were on the contract the answer is they all work well let me ask you about this the contract is solely costs arose from the work or from the defective work of their design people or some of their own it was all contract money it was all money that was seen to build the project susans up your time at the fed in his argument it was quite inside it that your argument for a new trial was too late that everyone had agreed to this form and it just sort of housekeeping i there would have been reference to the record i thought i'd looked at that record is that record from day nine before the form was submitted to the jury or is the record that's being folded actually the june twenty  boy i remember there was a lot of talk but i don't remember specifically and they said no your honor that's what perfectly answers the debate but everyone is talking about the fact that there was no on the record discussion of how this form was m there's no record evidence of any costs of any allegation any points that waypoint may have committed some negligent act for a mission i call it is that really right i mean opposing counsel just said you had a negligence doing out there that it was a breach of contract there's no there's no possibility of a negligent act or a mission by last year with wind falling outside of the confines of the contract is no evidence that waypoint hasn't come up an example could be that which means there is an overall verdict fall back on if there are inconsistency that were not raised before the jury was charged jackson has to be made in that two minutes and now or if there is a neuro ok that that that's the real difficult situation and they're doing the best they can in a difficult situation this before and whether any inconsistency or not there is certainly ways to say to do or did the best they can and they clearly said no just i'm not seeing where i am on this but but help me with this why aren't we giving this sort of set of instructions very form to jury sees me they got pretty close to saying there's no breach  different standards of viability that was not the case with my point there was no possible there is nothing there are no instructions to the jury that could have led them to the reasonable conclusion that waypoint responsible for team damages without breaching the contract and this is made to the nd theory that waypoint has put out there which is that st of all it seems they acknowledged negligence fall on their own to  have i don't necessarily disagree with that but it was also on a breach of contract but the nd theory that they put out there is that there was some there was some us already given to them within the contract that allowed them to order extra work  discretion in granting or denying a motion for a new trial is that the judge is in the best position to view the case that was all in light of the evidence and testimony that's presented up and we have to talk about all of these cases specifically case sitting in this case for over five years to jury trials no one is in a better position to decide whether or not this trial needed to be even if we retry and i will tell you in just in the record will show otherwise but isn't what happened what her what she was predicting could happen what i think she was predicting and again i can't get into the child or tell me what i believe she was predicting is that in the event that there was some evidence or some testimony or some suggestion that waypoint or lasky may have done something that we considered a negligent outside of the four corners of the contract scene then this is the situation we may have as it turns out that testimony evidence was never presented an allegation was never made there was never a suggestion that waypoint or lasky could have done anything that may have made them responsible for damages that would not have been a breach of contract well thank you nine that closes the video arguments of the day sorry we didn't have the opportunity to see to be a little bit more in person but we'll see how long this approach last