CHAIRPERSON
I see what you are getting at, but what happens if he had the three incidents and he was paid after the second incident, then one could safely say that that payment was for payments certainly of the second incident, maybe of the first, but definitely not for the third.  If he gets paid after the last incident, one can argue that that payment is in respect of the last incident only, but does it exclude payment for services rendered over the last eight months, all for basically the same purpose, all basically the same sort of transactions?  You know, here is a bag full of money for what you have done, it is yours.  Why is it necessarily restricted to the third only?  Just for purposes of argument, you know, on your argument then, he could have gone back and said okay, now pay me for the second one, and pay me again for the first one to Nieuwoudt?