in bangalore federal district court under the theory of quantum arrow it would be subject to an employment agreement between the parties which employment agreement the jury found was not a basis for awarding damages in this case  that became a question after such appeal to the main supreme court determined that even if they were wages awarded under a theory of quantum erowid or cause i contract that they would still be subject to means diamond did sign a two thousand and five employment agreement with alpha networks and he worked there from two thousand and five to about back to two thousand and ten in that employment agreement the key provision on choice of law provides that t alpha wanted to insert in there or should have inserted if they said in the contract that the terms of the employment relationship between mr dine and now for are going to be governed by california law then we would not be here on that school's the best argument that i can make as to what the maine supreme court would do short of certifying this for a second time on that issue would be that i believe the maine courts would look in a trip at the contract as it's written and i've given you some of those principles all of them would point to intro putting such language in a contract says that the trends of this lateral disagreement are governed by california law means what it says it's not to be rein it's not to be interpreted a way that like a more favorable to alpha especially when the jury was really clear when they checked the box that there was no meeting of the minds it was no contract reporting commissions for the year two thousand and nine and parity thousand  they said the two thousand five agreement which was awarded mr dunn a lot of commissions you know probably over three hundred thousand was not going to be follow so there was it was a count in this in this suit and express you could write a contract and i think probably a lot of employers do write contracts that are clear that the employment arrangement entire employment arrangements going to be covered by california law there is nothing to prevent alpha in a secure position writing this contract to make it clear and unambiguous contract that mr diamond surely would have signed back in two thousand and five they wrote this they had every opportunity to make this crystal clear they made it crystal clear in a direction they now no longer want which is that the terms this agreement this actual contract is california law nothing more they were very clear let me ask you about the facts of the performance thanks that he had accounts throughout the northeastern new england yes station in portland he only left probably a couple times a month by his testimony he performed the agreement primarily in portland occasionally flew out seminars in california but most of the time he testified he was only going to testify on this issue he was important so we will find in the record the fact that most of his actual working days and time was in name yes where we find in the record where most of the business was  recruiting they would have been companies you would find that in the record there would be companies stationed there which chip manufacturer i believe alpha was in the chip manufacturing business or selling chips and and such you know companies that were not typically me so if you're going to be somewhere the company's worth companies would be in texas i think i that i'd miss this state if i tried to remember from recollection but he had a number of companies we put exhibits in the record there are three or four large companies i don't believe  he'd fly out to companies when he needed to so on the contract issue we believe it's clear that main washed apply yes this second or do many even if this court found that the contract applied in this case there is a section of the restatement which indicates that if section six twenty six represents and i think situation in the main law court has ruled on that in that case the law court assumes six twenty six was a fundamental policy of the state of maine and said the delaware law regarding protecting employees was similar enough to mean it was not a substantial difference well here i don't think any question is a substantial difference between what california does to protect its employees which century thirty days wages in what maine to us maine is double the times of wages plus attorneys fees california law does not do nearly as much and i think the court does woodcock implicitly found out when he said there was a conflict question that needed to be resolved because there's a substantial difference now between what california law and mean law does here so i don't think schroeder versus right now supports his conclusion if the court gets to that second level in fines and the terms of disagreement do control california ball the last question in a very short run is reporting the interest and it's less of an issue  this court finds a california law prize and seven thousand we're not talking very much money it's more significant it's one hundred forty thousand my point simply is that under main law interest is allowed as a matter of right there's no good cause shown here that it shouldn't be awarded no one was dilatory we didn't delay the trial nothing we did wrong so each editor should be allowed thank you honor may i please the court to represent alpha networks here and this case is about commissions current simple it was about commissions from the beginning it continued to be about commissions and at the end the day it was about commissions mr died inside an agreement that permitted or that provided that california law would apply only to california why to the pain commissions over nine in ten and then the way it was set up if it answered that question otherwise it would have gone into some questions your honor i appreciate that's what it says but i was there and i'll tell you what happened and what and how that happened and it was because of the concern that judge sell yours already identified that there was to commission plants there was a commission plan in two thousand and five and then it was changed in two thousand and eight the two thousand and five plan was very lucrative for mr dining the two thousand and eight plan was not the two thousand and eight plan said this is the plan for two thousand and eight alpha believed that once a change to two thousand and eight it would continue on mr diamond took the position a trial but when two thousand and nine two thousand and ten came along it sprung back to the two you still seemed like you're running from the issue here you won the the the employment agreement and they didn't even had to get to the question of whether your client reached the employment agreement with him because you won that issue you didn't have a choice of law provision that says the terms of this letter shall be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the state of california how in order to enter the contract claim against you  jury need to construe or enforce the terms of the letter agreement have been found there was no because without the terms of the letter agreeing your honor there would be no one title to commissions at all there would never been any discussion of commissions had there been no letter agreement this is this is a very fine cue to argument but it ignores the reality that this whole fight was about conditions that were detailed in the letter agreement the critical fact and i think you're trying to think i'm trying to avoid the issue i'm trying to elucidate it the fact that the same choice of law agreement would apply to the two thousand and eight commission structure and that's not disputed so you that it would have applied to the two thousand and five commission structure it would have applied to the two thousand a commission structure structure but because we could not agree which of those two structures would apply well then all of a enforce the agreement they had to find that he was entitled to commissions and the only place where commissions come into the come into being here your honor is in the context of whether or not there other out of the agreement itself there was no right to commissions extend from that and the parties continued to operate as if there was because there was an agreement all the way through this so it's just it makes no sense from the intent of the parties that there would be an agreement that the choice of law would be california under one scheme or under another scheme but if we disagreed and the jury had to come in and give a third party a third calculation which is what they did we argued for zero he got it for seven hundred thousand dollars the jury said well we don't know we're going to give you something in the middle that's it was and mr diamond's look if it's provision of course not what hasn't what happened here is the jury has effectively said the first agreement doesn't cover this no breach of it by your client but we're going to create a contract covers the second one across my contract remedy covering something that they could not meet to construe the terms of the letter agreement in order to do ticking but your honor it come back to the fundamental question the only reason the main supreme judicial court t not because we did not feel that there was anything inappropriate about the quote when there was no basis for saying that the quasi contract claim could not go through because it was entirely possible that it could be a combination that there was no i'm struggling with the notion of how you can we make the choice of work provision the way you will look to do in the agreement particularly you seem to think paragraph eight cuts in your favor i think it cuts against you because you chose that when you  all the performances by on the part of al what took place in california that's a different argument and not that questions why don't because if the letter agreement doesn't govern shores law then the in maine and made phone calls from their place of performance for alpha was in california where it processed is payroll were paid his benefits were good all of those ends of the of it's compliance with the agreement so i would say that because the i guess you'd have to ask the supreme judicial court of maine about that but in the schroeder case it determined that a lower recovery under delaware law under the same stature would not preclude the application of contrary it furthers the exact same interest