need we don't get me cases from the federal maritime commission i think i've been here a while i know i've been here twenty five years i think this is the first one i've left in the one for you here hence the that the application here had nothing to do with what american law recognizes as mitigation of damages and in fact contradicted one of the primary principles of  in this case that's exactly what happened what what was the supposed his failure to mitigate was that the petitioner should a paid the demiurge charges which was the basis on which the defendants violated the statute to begin with so we're supposed to mitigate their violation of the statute by doing what they were supposed to do demurrage charges from the party that was supposed to pay them to the the injured to the point who is suing and the district or a very rich or very similar decision to sorry the settlement officer found the statute began to run here on equal thirtieth two thousand and eight what's remarkable is what she said triggered the statute of limitations release yet somehow the petitioner being told that zim was going to release the package somehow started the statue of limitations on a claim that they wouldn't re and she is using the same day a separate decision awarding mitigated damages to your client the container to so why did the time not begin to run on container wine on march seventh of twenty three excuse me twenty thirteen because i did because of the separation of the containers into two separate docket numbers was merely a matter of convenience these are t that you yeah but i would i would say that's not my argument and larry is that despite treating them as different you know docket number ever that means that doesn't mean that it wasn't all part of one controversy and why if we were why do we insist that someone mitigate damages because of the illegal conduct of someone else and then later seek reimbursement and have that doesn't that at the i mean is there any case law and with which we're to this agency and this notion of mitigation i think of my colleagues suggesting it's hardly intuitive that i'm being if someone's about to do something bad to me or is doing something bad i now become langworthy maritime commission it was the court to further to the decide that commissions review of mediation principle i think a broader concern for the agency is that these arguments about equal footing doctrine weren't presented to the agency this all could have been sorted out had they been presented at the time the commission and some offer were just faced with the general question of meditation and correctly held that duty was on the respondents below to make a case in chief or guardian of the affirmative defense and that yeah it is a big difference in this case but there might be there may be conditions under the city at the shipping industry generally where with a full record and considering the principles illuminating the shipping and the commission might agree with you but a doctrine the basic issue though is that it wasn't explore in every case certainly they go for the doctors or the fabric of litigation principle but what i don't think this court has ever required is that the commission or just records rundown every trap now never require pursuant to them or is a reasoned decision making and what we're suggesting to you is to cover this we're having trouble finding the reason decisionmaking here and there was a protest about it that what was presented to the decision maker and now the obligation of the agency to show was reasoned decision on which you have failed to carry your burden why should you get another shot at i realize the cases go both ways on this but again the instinct is i word you judy came to my case the agency couldn't make it why should i have to do it again i think  record i think for example is not clear on the exact amount of full damages fisher was alleging there were different numbers in the record but again we simply asked that if the court does disagree with the commission's findings on general mitigation will the commission be the first  a clear indication that the commission had reached its terminus it had it had consummated the proceedings and fixed the legal rights of the parties the commission doesn't have the equivalent of federal rule of civil procedure fifty four b but we do have is the commission in a clear indication saying we are done the petitioner sought opportunity to expand his damages by splitting is fine with that name back  it was very clearly contested in layman's terms of force and the application of the mitigation damages in this instance and he was not given an opportunity he sent a letter in was an officer i accept it but he never was requested to submit legal authority or anything like that which is the only way he could have done that in terms of the court's question before i just want to point out that the settlement officer is the one who said it was administr