Opinion ID: 2226962
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Oral Agreement as Inducing Contract

Text: The Hlebechuks next assert that parol evidence is admissible when an oral agreement is the inducing cause of the written contract. See Smith v. Michael Kurtz Construction Co., 232 N.W.2d 35 (N.D.1975). Evenson argues that this issue was not raised in the trial court. Our review of the briefs on the motion for summary judgment and the transcript of the hearing confirms Evenson's contention. In Mattis v. Mattis, 274 N.W.2d 201, 204 (N.D.1979), we said: ... ordinarily on appeals to this court the record must reflect that the appellant brought all matters necessary for the disposition of the issues raised on appeal before the trial court or that they were improperly excluded by the court; and that all issues raised on appeal were presented to the trial court but were not resolved in accordance with law. The appeal process is designed to review action taken by the trial court. It is not designed to give the appellant an opportunity to develop different strategy or theories. The appellant is bound by the record he made. Accordingly, this issue is not appropriately before us on this appeal.