untoward any prejudgment interest on that judgment citing a federal district court case which in turn relied on conway in massachusetts if she see case on march of two thousand and sixteen when only one year in the last from a contract reached in the tour but it didn't hear the case exactly one year after it heard the case thirty eight months thereafter so the jury very rationally could evidence with respect to the tortious interference loss you are contending what is evidence that showed that the losses persisted for longer than a year yes or at least fifteen months sixteen had not received any profit the problem the only problem i have is that we were dealing at that point with annualized contracts and they had a right to terminate within ninety days right so after they did the ninety day period for the contract breach is assuming terminations them so then that would give you another nine months but then at the end of that nine months twelve months would have run what would be the reason to think there was tortious interference with the next years contracts because there had been a new contract renewed the whole theory was there would been a breach of the contract so it should have ceased at the end of twelve months that's what i don't understand right it's so there was testimony  and yet recover losses for tortious interference that assumes there was no contract reads in other words the only damages host one year from tortious interference would be to interference with the new contract that would start at the end of one year but the contract claim theory is that there was a breach of that and there's a contract without notice the right number effect of after ninety days so you get the losses on the contract for those ninety days but i don't understand how you can have a torches interference claim that extends beyond a nine month there after and starts working on the nd year when there's been a breach to follow  relationship between east customers and prime are the jury rationally concluded that primer would have continued to do business with these customers for fifteen months had they had a supply of custom my suit case at this time with attorney louis what you turn on your microphone on your video legal effect of a ruling and summary judgment the district court ruled that there was no contract no legally binding agreement between the parties as of march th two thousand and fifteen that's to date the w w w indeed it for an agreement to provide prime are quote unquote some protection against an abrupt termination of supply in these emails and wants president is expressly acknowledging that under those circumstances that the parties or agreement or a course of dealing or relationship whatever you categorize the relationship as being there was a firm an express understanding that w w w was not under any obligation contract contractual case to proceed to trial and i will admit that there are some ambiguity in the district court's opinion and the summary judgment on some judgment judgment motion however the district court clarified that ambiguity on multiple occasions most notably by granting otherwise and in fact the language of the motion itself said whether there was a valid and enforceable distribution agreement included between the parties as of march th two thousand and fifteen is no longer a matter at issue and any purported evidence of such an agreement is a relevant under federal rule of evidence for or to this language and compass says any contract that would have been formed by a course of dealing were in any other way under the new uniform commercial code or recognized that this cause it affects of this ruling and argued at oral argument on this motion that if the court grants it it has the effect of granting a directed verdict before the trial even begins counsel one so far just as to say if your honor has ruled that there is no trial issue of fact as to whether or not there is a legally binding agreement we should not be here so although the quote allow crime mark to share some of the history between the parties during the trial to quote unquote set the table the court doubled down on its ruling on a motion in limine a number four when at sidebar i asked the court after the nine hundred and ninety three dollars agreement expires there were no further agreement and your honor ruled on that issue on summary judgment so anything after nine hundred and ninety three dollars should be excluded because it has a high probability of confusing the jury and confusing the issues or misleading the jury and the court responded all right so i agree and i'll be mindful of that as we move forward so the court agreed that there was no agreement after nine hundred and ninety three dollars and no such evidence should be allowed a trial is therefore impossible for a reasonable competent to come back with a verdict that there was a contract between these parties as of march th two thousand and fifteen any trial was evidence put forward of the course of dealing great question judge and i would say that there is no competent have in south put forward of course throughout the the testimony that i was president gave he tempted to put in evidence that was excluded well if we had this long history  challenging on the peel them with respect to this issue i'm not quite what what we're is the error that you are or was it an error that he allowed that evidence to be go forward at trial was that the error that it was the evidence should have at that point the evidence the testimony about the course of dealing with before the jury we we move for directed verdict before the plaintiff's testimony move reminded the court that he had already decided this that this was something that was already ruled upon and although there was an error of law made applying section two ness three hundred and nine and ruling that the potentially already ruled on that the court agreed and instructed us to limit any reference to the fact that there was no agreement and that is the entire case if there is no agreement then section two das three hundred and nine does not apply if there is no contractual supposedly admitted to set the stage for the rest of the trial it's not a nuff for us to have done business together for a long period of time to create a contract what risk required is a meeting of the minds and a present intention to be bound and there was no such of the so i get it the the directed for you to win the rejection of the motion for directed verdict one ground you claim you could win on is that if we review the evidence of course of dealing we should find it was insufficient to support the denial of the motion for directing purred you want to you're absolutely right especially had taken in like any other argument on a on your cross appeal as to why the denial of the motion for direct verdict was an error absolutely your honor one being the evidence that didn't come in even though we were instructed to limit our evidence that there was no contract as of march th two thousand and fifteen what are you separately making an argument about you were prejudiced by not the nominee by not being able to put on your own case because you were misled by the district or we were certainly prejudiced by not being able to quote ira case but when its argument to us in your challenge on the cross appeal to the most of the direct verdict we certainly have and i also submit that that is evidence of the trial court's error if it's no it's evidence of the trial court's prior ruling that there was no agreement between the parties for the child who works in a struct us thank you for the trial court to instruct of you debbie w not to put on its evidence that there was no trial and that is that the core of this case the only logical conclusion is that the trial court had already decided this issue and it was no longer a tribal issue for the jury at the end of evidence the trial court realized that it will stop we're here we shouldn't be here however we've just had five days of trial now wh we had a devil of a time fashioning a charge because if there's no legal agreement everything else falls aside including the tortious interference claim so as my brother missed the law and said during oral argument on a motion in limine a if is that there was insufficient evidence to support the now the directed verdict the result of that would be we grant the directed verdict and that ends the whole case the other possibility is that all the evidence that actually went before the jury might have been sufficient so that you lose on your challenge to the denial of the motion corrected verdict the whole thing got mala stuff and that is not fair to you because you never got your case to the jury what would be the appropriate remedy we vacate the home all the verdicts and go back to square one or what happens then certainly we prefer the st option and i would believe when you review the evidence you will also see judge bearing that there was i completely understand the argument that if that evidence was insufficient the denial of the directive or it was an error you have separately told us that although that was evidence of course dealing it never should have been there but it was there you're only appealing from the denial of the motion for directed verdict you also tell us that you were denied an opportunity to present a countervailing case as to the issue of course of dealing before the jur but you just seem to say that although you mentioned those facts you didn't call that out as an issue in your cross appeal it sounds to me like that might have been waiting at which point if that's waived than the only issue for us is whether the evidence that was actually error that was the trial court's denial of our motion for directed verdict and that is based on its prior ruling that there was no agreement between the parties as of march th two thousand and fifteen also the evidence that came in that crime or head substitute arrange you for that question your honor it would take you an hour to get through the evidence in the record at trial of crime are working with our suppliers behind our backs asking them not to put information in emails so that it wouldn't get out that they were doing it everything you can imagine is in there with respect to prime mark not only taking steps to replace the p w w but strategically siphoning business from w w w using these competitors to copy our products and slowly move business over to those competitors and prime our argues that we should have given them ninety days to finish replicating the rest of our product line so they could have moved one hundred percent of their business from debbie debbie wu to our competitors before they gave us notice that they were i'm happy answering questions but i know my time testimony from our president he offered a handful of examples to illustrate his use of other suppliers during the party's long course of dealings and how do you how do you let us the result of the motion in let the courts motion to limit a defendant's argument that they were prejudice because they were preventing prevented from putting on evidence  lose overstates the significance of but anyhow that was a key evidence from their point of view that the parties did not have an agreement because my client had asked for a one year notice period before and then so our view of the evidence which would have been rational for the jury to conclude is that that was limited to the amount of notice not not that the parties parties relationship was you will find it by the parties course of conduct over thirty four years your honor under the parties relationship is governed by the u c c which permits a contract to be established by the artist common that which recognizes it order to mean you can't you can't put in evidence of in a written agreement or all are mean and then he left open the path to establish a contract under two desk to a floor one the authority to introduce the parties course of conduct was doubtless that they had a contract and the judge ruled on that from the bench and he said yeah you can put that stuff in and then what cements this view of othe judges view the cases he put in his trial jury instructions that promise could prove contract through the parties long history of multiple repeated continuous transactions and had he thought that primer could not prove his contract through a course of conduct he never would  that jury instruction in before the jury so as i say the court certainly narrowed the path for us to approve the contract but he left open a path in the r in the most that live any evidence that the europol it wanted to put in i take it was evidence about the nonexistence of an oral or written agreement is he as you understand it and that's what he was