reconciled with the factual record and therefore the verdict is inconsistent the coup or should not it entered judgment in this case that for the court to specifically to rule forty nine which prohibits the entry of judgment where the verdict is inconsistent this case the boo the defects in the design and manufacture of the boom dominated the case in fact mr sharp was forced to replace the boom at a cost of a hundred forty thousand dollars plus labor mr short testified that because the problems with the b evidence that the boom the problems related with the boom were course mr short to loss of the use of his yacht repair costs and ultimately the need to replace it so i submit to you want to hear this there were problems with makes clear that this problem with hydraulics was relatively minor and fixed under warranty not so with the with respect to the boom how do you not make another argument is that  situation which it was placed i am suggesting that quite clearly your honor and the reason why i say that is because there were soon to be other problems as an example just chaotic the whole system which is the system which winds the things are on respect you know the first is those were minor minor problems that could not have possibly on any rational reasonable basis cost six hundred sixty three thousand dollars of is incorrect as i understand the case on the concord case and there's a very instructive case from my perspective certainly the case ran for marine from the district of connecticut the poor makes clear it's a pleasure craft and with a pleasure chris you are not entitled to loss of charter income without any right record of charter income that also includes any damages mr sure testified to submit incorrectly and and no cost to put the boom on and maybe some damages relating to the use of few who and the like transmissions because he was sending pictures back to the mainland from wherever he was how  if the hydraulics a would close the problem with the boom it would ended up with missed the shop having to place the boom then it entails back to the hydraulics that's what started the whole problem and we had no involvement in that there's no other possible explanation for the jury verdict as judge baron reference the judge cited all of these other problems one of whom was the commissioning problem that it just wasn't related event claims in that case which did not involve a breach of an express warranty so the negligence gets wrapped up into that whole analysis that's a very separate path than talking about the breach of an express warranty which is the  everyone has acknowledged that this vessel was plagued with problems this does that mean you're saying she's only wrong with respect to the express warranty judge bear and i would say that i'm not entirely sure i understand your honour's question attorney general regulation that we cited which is nine forty c m r three point zero eight they had nothing to do with warranties we had no reasonable way to anticipate that and we brought this up as soon as we took a deeper dive we had no way to know that a judge would determine that a material breach of weren't causing six hundred sixty four thousand dollars of damage would not produce and various we think that conclusion is intent to operate this yacht as a commercial venture he testified he only had it only used as a pleasure craft he registered it as such the charter agreements with his different charter lessees if you will it says pleasure craft and each one of those that title to this vessel recognizes it is a pleasure craft the insurance policy that he has on the shop recognize pleasure craft and i submit to your honor's nowhere in the record will you find any statements by mr sharp exceptional serving testimony at trial that he was losing trying to hire until such time as the lawsuit was started secondly you responsible manufacturer and that it did everything it was supposed to do the jury still found chip morning tea so obviously the jury believed g m c did not do everything it was supposed to do and secondly you breach because the world requires that he repair the g m t repair the component that is either defective or designed effectively and if that were the case in the jury would have come back and said no one of the questions relative to bridge or contract