property that the interest in the property has never changed there has been no order of the district court at any stage of any proceeding right now weighted interest in the property an interest in property is different from a contractual rights of contract a right or an interest in property to purchase the property that creates the interest in the property itself again it came to an option which is what this was in title and all of that although the question of whether it's whether the sounds of property whether it's not a contract may have an implication for for damages i thought that you stipulated that the damages would be founded in contract to the extent that specific performance is an unavailable remedy and only that extent we would agree that damages would be an appropriate right however i have never varied in right to release the district court therefore did not order that that mr moore saw me the seller had a right and declared his rights so that i would then have a stay of that or what he said was you have no claim this or more link you are out the distinction is critical because what happens here is can funny steps in after the first case is over he knew all about the transaction he was a witness in the first trial he shows up and they close the transaction while there's a pending appeal at that point in time that the interest in property that we discussed is still resident in moreland during the appeal kampung recognized it and put it in his transaction documents i will assume all risks the j permits you to file a letter brief even after argument that you know your opponent the opportunity to see if you understand that i understand ok and that it's a benefit in burden of west law unfortunately you can get online at eleven o'clock at night a money judgment directly against mr campanis but we are entitled although we don't want it we want specific performance we are in total money judgment against mr moore sonnie and there are simply in this case we know because of the transactional documents that mr campanis picked up all of the obligations transformers a party is bound and entitle to the benefits of race to the conduct and the burdens as his transfer or and the rationale for it is very very straightforward yes mr campaigning as in here was aware and i'm quoting now was aware of the litigation but it does not join as a party he acquiesces in the transfer or is continuing for purposes of litigation to be the apparent owner of the interesting property he was doing so in effect treating the transfer or as his representative in the action so that's the problem when you think about when you think about the difference between the argument that we're obligated to get a stay and that we are given the opportunity to get a stay we had an opportunity whether it would have been granted or not i am not certain frankly we couldn't have basically gone back to the district court and asked for a mandatory injunction at the conclusion of a trial where we were told you have no interest in you have no possibility of success on the merits what the case to stand for in the cases that we're talking about which cited for example in his meadows case the issue of whether you to have that right that's in effect the first case when we went back we asked if that's about right what do you tell me what's wrong with that ok what is wrong with that is simply this first of all this is not an equitable analysis the district judge made the first determination that campaign he was entitled to rely on his judgment in other words in effect saying we had an obligation to obtain stay the discussion of the equities after the fact saying well you know at this point it would be an equitable the debt doesn't go into details of why it would be an that interest lightly and says i'm not worried about the appeal i'll just sit back and wait we all take our chances but the problem is that that appeal came back and said more than was entitle to the property at the point that we went back to the district court and asked for relief the transaction had already had already occurred stock had been transferred the argument from this society is that we were obligated to stop them from transferring any answer is now or that we were obligated to or couldn't if you wanted to  specific performance where there's already been the transaction and it might be difficult probably would be difficult to unwind or do i try to compensate the injured party through an appropriate measure of damages what's wrong with increased in value significantly due to the efforts of the composite nisa it was a complex deal that requires the ford motor company to pass upon the transfer of franchise when he gave reasons why didn't just come to me a dream but  your honor i would i would suggest to you that if you read that decision it is all premised upon his belief that we were required to give states not have the opportunity to do so if you look at the equities for the second way and say i don't know whether they were required to or not but here's the first of all we've put on a case before we have to get into the equities will discuss that we put on a case to the judge that was very clear the purchase price that more sonnie sold at the purchase price of purchase price that mr cain pony purchased that was book value there was no doubt about it the book value passage of time candidly frustrates me i made my motion for summary judgment within months of getting that that decision back from the night circuit and the district court judge waited approximately ten months before denying the motion and then we want all the way to march to get to trial the passage of time is is you know really not my fault i've done everything i can from an equitable standpoint in fairness the cases discussed the cases discussed the situation where a party purchases and says i mr morland like it both ways he would like the benefits of the stay but without getting astray and i don't think that's the law and i think the law is really clear in regards to that on the transfer of the stock remark s is a good faith buyer is one who buys in good faith and for value and jeff mckibben made a specific determination in this decision that we were a good faith buyer that there wasn't any fraud there was any collusion there was  any or anything involved in this particular case other than the fact that there was a reliance on that particular judgment that was entered and the failure to get a stay in reference to the damage issues in regards to my client there was no cause of action for obligation but we felt that was an important point to point out to the court if damages are appropriate in this case we believe judge mchugh who's correct he correctly look at the stipulation between the the parties that stipulated very distinctly what those damages would be and they were basically what the difference between the fair market value in the date of purchase by the can and he said what the companions paid he termed the damage to be two hundred seven thousand two hundred seven thousand dollars and based upon that he made that decision i think the one final point that essentially mccrimmon really truly did he tried to balance the equities here in his decision he really looked at the fact on one side we have somebody who didn't get a stay but that doesn't mean that i agree or that we agree that damages should have been award in the first instance we believe that if you allow damages to go forward against mr moore signy you're basically allowing the u you object to the way the judge calculated the damages not only in this instance i don't think damages which should have been calculated or should have been awarded against my client to begin with weight doesn't the question no pani made millions of dollars in this case that he would never have been entitled to my client did everything in a timely fashion and it is the district court's procedure that puts me in this position where they just report and say well the passage of time even though we need quick getting the dealership he should have gotten years ago mr cam pani retains millions of dollars that he was never really entitle to get but he does get to keep it because we are taking the high road chose not to go after we possibly could have but we stipulated for a different theory inconsistent concept the afterthought as to just well there are equitable considerations here there were no witnesses that testified in the trial below as to i'm going to lose my job these terrible things are going to happen how difficult there was very little evidence