is there was another claim for two point nine billion dollars worth of damages which was a new albertson's part of robert's claims a plaintiff in this case made again we submit to this court that the jury got to decide we don't know to this day what a portion of it the jury applied to that claim and then finally there are set of instructions instructions on ts tax the twenty one charge that at the end of the day  change which should be a strict liability stash and into something much less something that imports a knowledge component which simply doesn't exist and i think everybody agrees with that and also a quantification element  work should have been prioritized if you look at the evidence and you would be as it's in context and i think you mentioned that you had to look at the constellation of facts and it was submitted to the argument submitted by new albertson's with respect to this is doing exactly saying that's not the contract is subsumed incorporated into the contract so context of this case was there are p c b s on the banking industry and it needs to be cleaned right away and there's evidence in the record that while the in that d e p t order requires the same thing and also requires that the parties make efforts to provide access and to obtain access and so the contract with respect to the evidence that supports it didn't happen was because of the party whose claim breached this to mr mitchell testified directly and specifically that if we had done it our way we would have finished in one season and that was in the context  recommendation to do this in another way says made a different recommendation and at the end of the day because it goes to our head and this is all cited in our brief we have to come with a recommendation so that's the cooperation we're supposed to do it quickly is a quick and this is all based on the constellation of facts the requests for me the solution was obvious the problem was obvious the need was obvious and there was no cooperation from so that's the  he would cross through one season and then figure out which it would cost that first season and that three point nine million dollars is his calculation of how much cost if you don't get it done in one season we agree it should have been done in one season  could determine damages with respect to that term fifty six seconds but i want to highlight the reversal of the access decision because that's critical the main reason the judge decided he didn't have to denial of access charge because there is a move to anybody contests that there is not a duty to provide access under the contract there's a separate basis for denied under the for access under the contract when he said there is the judgment that was against the charter school made by the jury because there was not legally sufficient evidence to support that verdict there are three points as to ride there was not legally sufficient basis for the have anything to do with the release of this could not it's possible that it would not have started there could be a situation where it's discovered after you get to the property that releases happened it has to be cleaned briefs why did we believe that to recharge the objection was wait a minute i preserved but i also would like to point out the substance of what we're arguing about the only thing that thomas and betts argued with respect to success or liability with respect where we had to create and where we had to create is the banks and broader we had to do we had to clear it to the limits that are defined by the d p that was our goal that was what we thought we had to do that's what he thought we had to do and in that context the arguments raised by mr hardy i don't think carry the thank you will do our best