Opinion ID: 2813646
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Sale of the Header

Text: The parties agree that the McCuistons promised to purchase a header from Golden Triangle. The dispute is whether the McCuistons ever paid the purchase price. The district court found that the McCuistons had paid for 1 Deere also voluntarily dismissed its claims against Golden Triangle and Mr. Cabelka. Thus, Deere is no longer a party in the case. 2 The court based Golden Triangle’s liability on the warranty claim and Mr. Cabelka’s liability on the claim of constructive fraud. 4 the header by using a $30,000 offset. Golden Triangle and Mr. Cabelka disagree with this finding. III. Golden Triangle/Cabelka’s New Appellate Arguments On appeal, Golden Triangle and Mr. Cabelka make two new appellate arguments: 1. The McCuistons’ theory is based on an oral contract, which is precluded by the statute of frauds. 2. The McCuistons’ “unclean hands” would preclude equitable relief. These arguments were not presented in district court. As a result, these arguments were considered “forfeited.” See EEOC v. Beverage Distributors Co., 780 F.3d 1018, 1023 n.4 (10th Cir. 2015). Forfeited arguments are ordinarily reviewable under the plain-error standard. See Richison v. Ernest Group, Inc., 634 F.3d 1123, 1128 (10th Cir. 2011). But Golden Triangle and Mr. Cabelka have not made an argument under the plain-error standard. As a result, we decline to consider the new appellate arguments. See id. at 1130-31.