Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): both husband and wife conceded that there was no goodwill to be had and that they simply did not think that the business was worth valuing as a going concern. Nevertheless, at the end of trial, the court assigned $10,000 of goodwill to the trucking business. The trial court issued its opinion letter in March 2000 assigning a goodwill value to the business and issued its judgment in August 2000. Between that time, husband did not object to the trial court’s assignment of goodwill. It is this lack of objection that leads wife to conclude that husband did not preserve his argument. We agree with wife that husband did not properly preserve his objection to the trial court’s decision on goodwill. See McDougal v. Griffith, 156 Or App 83, 86-87, 964 P2d 1135 (1998), rev den, 328 Or 330 (1999) (<HOLDING>). However, we may reach this issue under the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the failure to object at trial customarily means that a party has not preserved the claim on appeal (B) holding party may not argue one ground at trial and another on appeal where appellant did not object to testimony at trial on the grounds raised on appeal that it was improper character evidence but objected only on the basis of relevancy issue was not preserved for review (C) holding that a plaintiff who did not object to the trial courts memorandum opinion giving defendants more on their counterclaim than they had requested had not preserved that issue for appeal (D) holding that a claim was not preserved for review where the defense failed to object on the specific grounds advanced on appeal (E) holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it  
Output (English): holding that an issue is preserved for appeal where the issue was sufficiently raised for the court to rule on it