the next matter on our calendar is their centralise vs rich craft corporation sued by the grace that you know it was lowered there's  builders work no it's our contention that we did not want you on your website say that you did we on our website said that we were back our homes but we'd issue we were the advertising materials were clear that we offered a one year warranty for the just the parts you supply for what we saw the construction of the hall correct what do you think the central was understood nothing took a tour of the issue is that these plaintiffs although consumers were very educated in the central was had researched manufactured home building for years before they entered into the contract with mountain view and in fact selected mountain view before it even sold i mean you had to have some responsibility didn't you for the fact that the heating never worked at leat the insulation wasn't properly installed all of that didn't you take any responsibility no your honor because that wasn't there was no contention from the beginning of this case until the second day of trial that the work that ritz craft performed was improper there was not that george give you some sanction related relief on the expert testimony didn't want you to cross examine the expert and bring your own expert in response we were your honor but we submit that that's not sufficient it is extremely prejudicial the entire thing this case was that mountain view  failed to performance obligations so the judge try to make it right right but there was no explanation whatsoever for complete disregard of the obligations under rule twenty six the rule is clear and the case  is clear that expert opinions must be contained in the report or supplemental report there was none and so there has to be harmless error some rationale for the some what it exactly did the judge do in response first they of the trial and i absolutely said bananas like the atomic weapon sanction instead of something that was more moderate yes but your honor when it's such a fundamental issue i mean to come in on the second day without having never said that ritz crafted any had any improper design or defective construction i would submit that that is the ground for the atomic sanction and as in the d v d decision and the other case law cited i the judge found no case law for mind case law or rules requiring him to give special and to record that's current row forty nine authorizes the court to require special  charging that's not an answer where would we look to find what you have now just described your proposed your instructor not the proposed years of the proposed specific interrupt i'm so i misspoke i meant  reach first a question you posed and correct on the record that the portion of the home that rich craft made promises about was really the whole  home there is a quite a powerful corporate video that is shown anybody who inquires about a rich rich craft home it's available both sun a youtube channel and embedded in their website where the president of the corporation speaks to perspective homeowners which is exactly what the centralize was went to the factory and then they went to the factory and the important thing here is that rich craft on the front end of these deals rich craft is selling to the homeowner that's they use the word you and they present to the purchase person purchasing home and what they're purchasing is a rich craft home not a series of modules and they make representations about the energy efficiency and that it will meet code and obviously that can't happen as to energy efficiency unless it's an intact home a pile of lumber on the ground cannot be energy efficient or inefficient it's just a pile of lumber on the ground what happens after they collect their money from the homeowner and in this instance it was the ninety four thousand dollars that's been stipulated to the ritz craft disappears from the scene and contrary to the representation that this is going to meet code which they were told that they said whatever level of home you buy you will it will meet vermont building code contrary to that representation that was made during the factory tour this home had what's known as a blower door test on it and the specifications in the ritz craft drawings are three air exchanges per hour the code requirement for vermont is five a exchanges for our and this home has ten air exchanges for our and that is that is like having a window the size of this podium constantly open they specifically were looking at one of the harshest environments iowa mot is beautiful they call it god's country because perhaps only god would want to go there it is barren northern northern vermont up on the lake it's a big called place so energy efficiency is credit critical the situation ironically of mott mountain view not being before you speaks to another issue in this case which is that the way this deal is presented to consumers mountain view and ritz craft are layered on top of each other and they're both layered legally meaning that mountain view is a licensee of ritz craft content so the juggernaut selling machine is all integrated and wrote red scrap boasts on the materials that are both on its own website and on mountain views website about how robust its bill builder network is how developed these relationships are but i don't guarantee the mountain views work do they they they they there is no express guarantee of the work there are as there were experts there were expressed statements by the president of the corporation that they would stand by the home so you can it as as noted before the modules are not the home the home is the home and if you look at the video another critical part of this welding of the builder and the manufacturer is that the video shows follow homes and it shows people doing the work that is actually the work of the mountain view or whoever the builder is who is on site but that's that's part of the ritz craft video which shows them doing what is known  stick building building that can't be done in the factory so some of it in a house like what the central is bought which is a cape there has to be significant build out on the second floor on a colonial for example that has a straight two floors it's just modules that are getting put together in this instance it was both downstairs and the roof but they had to build dormers to put an extra bedroom and some plumbing up stairs on the dormers are built out by the builder but any any time that ritz craft does that they technically rich craft supplies the materials but it still has to be built in the field whereas some of the materials come actually as as honks pre pre put together a few well  and the major thing then is that they need to be knit together it's literally called a marriage wall for this type of construction material all of the materials are provided by rich craft down to the tub is already there the appliances i think i believe the appliances were there the countertops are there it's you know it's finished painted but what's current supplies the appliances as well as the  lumber i am not one hundred percent sure i believe that's part of when you buy kitchen that's what you get but if it's not you you buy a kitchen that has the hook up for the fridge where you know all of that i design issues they were given the opportunity to rebut that testimony by cross examination and proper notice under rule twenty six that's accurate but how did that happen  it i have no better explanation for the court other than that matters develop as you try them you don't you don't know what it's going to look like to them at legal question you knew it was going to come up didn't you but that's the thing it actually wasn't the ultimate legal question i may be guilty of having been greedy to get it but it was non dispositive testimony and what's more it was always available to me as cross examination of their expert because their expert had a blog post which was an exhibit plaintiff's exhibit twenty eight it's referenced in our supplemental appendix at least by the number but it was a blog post on the nuance of what's called air ceiling which is the significant thing to achieve energy efficiency how you how you make seems to be weatherproof om for energy efficiency and he had blog on that issue and none of those details were available in the ritz craft drawings and it was one of the most satisfying cross examinations of my career and it went completely to this issue and it would have been they are whether or not mr bradley had testified to and he thing i need to move to my own issues lester you ok so pre judgment interest is awarded in from on as a matter of right when the sum is liquidated or reasonably ascertainable the sum that we saw that was in the prayer of relief was the amount of consideration attributable to risk craft ninety four thousand exactly and writs craft knew that at all times as a matter of law a right that triggers a legal it's a it's a shout situation and and the suggestion that the court made is that somehow it was obfuscated because other damages were sought or because it didn't come clear until the time of trial is immaterial because the magic of the pre judgment interest rule is whether they know about it from day one or verdict minus one day they have the they have the capacity to prevent themselves from having to pay the interest so delay isn't a factor their interest may have been accruing but they always have the right to get rid of it by tendering the money so so purpose of the interest rule up a policy reason is served here it also is routine in the case law that discernment is made between the portions of the award that pre judgment interest is due on and portions of the award that it is not to on now we didn't have any other damages that were recovered in this case ones that you dropped out once you are on our other cl want you on the express warranty were just suing them for the whole of out we were we were suing on express warranty we were suing on damages following the express warranty which would have been repaired damages as well as implied warranty s and we lost on those claims which reaches another issue right but now you're saying we always only expected ninety four thousand dollars no we would like to many complaints there were a variety of different damages that were being sought and on our set of claims we were entitled to a return of consideration and we specifically pled that and  asked for that in a prayer for relief because that's one of the remedies available on to the statue so so that we also believe your honor that the jury should have been able to hear the issue of exemplary damages exemplary damages are subject to what is called an actual malice standard in vermont the court is well familiar with this however there is a tendency to look at it it to look to the language of personal will and all of that and that is not what the standard is for corporate conduct corporate conduct can be shown as callous disregard without such express hostility to the particular plaintiff in the case and in this case there is so many layers of callous disregard and ed vance saying the finance chil self interest of the corporation before that of the consumer that we believe there is a fundamental basis to ask the jury who are the finders of fact in this task that is this malice in these circumstances where you have a company that doesn't check the bonafied of the builder that sells through a marketing campaign interspersed with  or and then as soon as you get into the product they step aside and they say we have nothing to do with it the customer is the builders customer the builder is our customer we have nothing to do with the home there's explicit deposition testimony that is provided in our brief that brings forward this complete lack of regard for the consumer after the deal has taken place and those are the kind of circumstances which show the callous disregard that is necessary for example damages thank you ok you're welcome briefly with respect to the exemplary damages we think that judge conway was correct that in order for the issue of exemplary damages to go to the jury there had to be ill will or wanton conduct and that was completely lacking even if you accept the plaintiff's position that our advertising our promotional materials were deceptive there was no evidence that red cross rep or bad representatives or owners intended any personal animosity and for a corporation you must show that the governing officers directed at knowledge or ratified such conduct and i think the case of the fourth in our brief and relied on by the court is clear that that evidence is lacking in this case pre judgment interest pre judgment interest first we believe that because the consumer protection act contains the express remedies there's no case law that says that the vermont consumer protection act is treated the defendants in those cases contested the availability of those damn can't think of a reason why it would be treated differently in the civil cases because why would the from and consumer protection act b a lawsuit under the rock be different than any of the civil lawsuits because if there is a statutory remedy clear that you get pre judgment interest on vermont law but i think even more importantly in this case it's absolutely not correct that the damages of a read only ascertainable this complaint was filed in two thousand and fourteen the plaintiffs from sought the greater of the consideration to the damages is clear from the consumer protection claim as well as the breach of the more and to say we're seeking to have its craft responsible for all of the work of the builder and those damages it was not until sometime in two thousand and seventeen more than three years didn't actually file for bankruptcy but there were there weren't any assets that any of us thought we could hear when it was just the central is suing rich grafter at some point they conceded that the amount in question was the ninety four yeah but they continued so yes but they continued to see the full amount on the other the other claims and i think those conway admitted that because the amount in dispute was the full amount that it was not readily ascertainable it was never suggested that ritz craft could simply pay ninety four thousand dollars and then we determine everything later that did not occur never offered to make an offer to pay it into the court alexander thank you thank you counsel is correct that the only decisions in vermont have not disturbed trial court awards of pre judgment interest and actually shortly before the conclusion of the trial a third superior court decision came out which was filed with the district court in which pre judgment interest was awarded on a consumer protection act claim moreover other statutory schemes that don't specifically mention pre judgment interest in vermont routinely get pre judgment interest primarily the statute to look at refers to mechanics lns with regard to the exemplary damage and the of the other thing is to just make clear that the pleadings have always said the amount of consideration attributable to ritz craft or the other damage we're just seeking the whole amount for it's correct we were we were seeking the whole amount of damages from rights craft that we could get the consideration remedy is very specific that it's attributable to that defendant so we always conditioned it as attributable to we knew that we would never be able to get the full two hundred fifty four thousand that was spent from one defendant one or the other we were only able to get the consideration that it's readily ascertainable yes it was it with regard to the exemplary damages issue i think it's critically important to understand that the president  was responsible for creating the marketing program this was conduct engaged at from the very top and ironically the the situation we find our selves both  him them without an indemnity tour and us without the rest of our damages has everything in the world to do with how good investigation they did of this company that they branded that promise that they had a good that they