all the evidence is undisputed bit that in fact they follow the procedures that were knowledge by homer its own experts to be good procedures they did it they followed that there was nothing in the contract to require any different procedure there was no evidence presented to fit any standard in the industry require a different procedure they used a procedure that hallmarks only present only president during the course of the work while the work was being performed myriad was in effect an expert in the field been involved in the industry for many years he was the onsite superintendent for this project he was there for seventy five to eighty percent of as to the method that was used the method that was approved by hallmark's own president hallmarking trial brought in an expert medical institute who was not involved in the work he had not been involved in  was relying on evidence in the trial court might on that evidence that wasn't something that was required to say after the fact and it was in fact by hallmarks own experts testimony a method that is not typically used during the course of excavation they came in with so of course that's not something needs to victory done there was work done at the time of the project it was in their own estimation was it was it was done with proper equipment it satisfied hallmark's president and for the court thing to rely on a procedure that was used after the failure to question what had been done i think  i don't have a case in sight as i stand here your honor although to me it would be of manner of fairness and a matter of basic contract law as to what was s even though there is a method to snap typically used at the time that you do your work we're going to do that do i have a case to to support it no other than again i don't think that's what w in fact the the evidence that was presented at trial was undisputed again that neary was experienced in the field that he used the prowl for equipment  testing procedure known as proof roll which hallmark's own expert acknowledged in his report was a proper testing procedure in fact he recommended in his report evidence in each of those items is not disputed further there was evidence at trial that near asked hallmark inquired hallmark of the president at the time of the work whether hallmark was executed changes were for those extras that were not paid well first of all this required by a portion of their contract that refers to exhibit d it says these are the people  because then because i believe with respect to the to the defendant's appeal the record is cleared as right as information with respect to the expert on the record an expert opinion that the trout judge had enough information a those are fundamentally interconnected the court recognizes that in its own decision when all is said it is to the twenty two thousand dollars and we're denying that because we moved in favor of hall mark the claim for the extras is really independent and the only independent claim of near that was fourteen thousand eight hundred dollars and someone stands there was granted awarded in total and so first of all i would s that here it was one hundred percent successful on its independent claim now even if the court would not agree with my characterization of it i don't think under the prevailing case law that it is necessary for us to represent zero one percent on our independent can i think we did but to me the the the relevant case law is essentially two items on turns first of all seventy five dollars they were awarded fees by the trial court of thirty thousand dollars on that basis this court tell them that you know there wasn't appropriate but if  recovery that statement was met in this case by a near by the word of the trial court in favor of the near into the reason the trial court's decision was appropriate and certainly was not finding regarding the proposal on peel it be nears proposal that's the critical document for the extras issue because it was that proposal that excluded from the base compensation the type of all the work that was done that was contemplated included within the extras it was excluded by the proposal so these were extra invoices governed by the proposal they paid to in the