jacobs engineering was the prime contractor on that project jacobs entered into a contract with southeast contracting to provide something else for mediation part of that contract the conditional opposition filed by hartford to the original motion and necessarily the original moving papers by hartford which were frequently referenced in the original cross motion its granted specifically what were the whether there was a joint venture ultimately the court ruled on that motion finding the foreign motion unopposed in fact rest in the preceding motions then they felt that it had been adequately covered th joint venture in b although it was renewed they were removing the earlier issues that were before the court but you've heard let me see if i can explain this to you the original t motion for reconsideration is simply an elective decision deep hartford did not have to cover all issues raised in the underlying motion and its motion for reconsideration and primarily focused on the damages issue but the fact that they didn't raise all issues in the motion for reconsideration or even whether or not they filed a motion for reconsideration does not affect their right to appeal equipment might now be in actual use during the period of subcontract performance for example a contractor brings a water truck onto a project now the water truck may not be used every day but when it gets dusty he may have to use his water truck to water the project that would be reasonably required for use during the period of performance because when you begin your remarks as far as a human performance a i do not believe it is not clear in alaska on that subject i would suggest if for example there was an owner terminations then the proper remedy would probably be under of terminations for convenience class and the or scaffolding the type of thing that is least on a day to day or even month to month basis this was hot air paper extraction equipment very rare equipment very expensive equipment  is frequently in the man for that reason when this lease was introduced into with se construction it was and this is very significant for your construction of the obligations of the parties in this case twice for payment of thirty one thousand dollars per month for a certain number of months and twenty thousand dollars per month for a period after and the other thing that i notice about i that what you are referring to is the financing provisions rather than obligating the less need to make the entire three hundred six thousand dollars painted at one time the lease provides for making installment payments specified in the schedule below the schedule is in fact the last page of this document if you look directly beneath the table where the financing terms are described that unifies the actual term of least initially as our client is a third party beneficiary of the bond welcome as i understand it a payment by it's really designed to protect the owner of the property against the rights asserted by somebody else that is one purpose of a on but it's certainly not the only purpose of a bond in fact in this instance there was no bond requirement by the owner of the property the owner of the property was the federal government the performance farmed but those payment in performance bonds while being required by the general contractor perhaps out of its own self interest was clearly for the purpose of protecting the providers of labor equipment and right it is the payment bond that's in the record here that's correct that's the same thing labor materials vine is a pinnacle yes not a performance part that's correct or a compensated vos which is hartford where hartford makes its income by selling bonds to people in these circumstances harper has not only the power and because they draft the agreements the financial interest because this is their business but the courts put upon them the duty to draft these things in a clear and unequivocal manner in the same way that insurance providers are required to  require me back oh in the performance of that work that identifies the scope of the work not the duration if in fact hartford wanted to comment on the duration of the work rather than the scope they have the power to do that they can say clearly as they're required by law to do that this only applies to amounts that are or for the value of things during the performance of the they use this piece of equipment on the project or even a day what's the entire feel was earned so irrespective of how that particular passage out of the on me interpreted there is no performance other than to obtain a surety that would be a performance management no your honor no let me be very clear about this in terms of the terms of art between performance bond on a payment on a performance to contractors we're talking about some kind of a contract between the lesser of equipment in the lessee of euchre there is no meaningful distinction between the nature of the payment bond between a less sore and a purchaser of renter of that equipment and for instance the owner who buys construction services the bonds forms are in fact the identical long forms we're looking at here the difference between a payment in performance on his one guarantees and an amount that is agreed to be paid it will be paid best for somebody who's buying services labor couldn't repair a performance bond something guarantees that some of the who's going to be providing services labor equipment or material will provide those to the person who is to be painting them to something ok getting back to that my concerns that you had your honor you asked me the question if we find that this language is unambiguous and that hartford's interpretation is a reasonable one doesn't that ended the discussion the answer is no because i started to say this is it lumps on single premium contract so once this material appeared on the job question about whether there is in fact well your position was if we find your first question rather was if we find that hartford interpretation is reasonable and i was about to say then that leads you to the next question you must know  yourselves whether far as interpretation is reasonable because if we have two reasonable interpretations of this language then as the claimant farms interpretation must prevail  barn company's own principal mr manchester saying that this equipment was used in the project and was reasonably necessary in the performance of this contract and the only way that you could determine you know leaving aside the single premium issue the only way that you could determine that farms interpretation would not prevail is not only that hartford was reasonable but that farms interpretation was the only reasonable