Opinion ID: 524344
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Exclusion of Evidence of Voysey's and Verderber's Limited Negotiating Authority

Text: 64 WPPSS contends that the court erred in rejecting its proffered evidence relating to the limited extent of Voysey's and Verderber's actual negotiating authority. Prior to trial, however, WPPSS had never challenged their authority as negotiators of Contract 213A. The court in its previous order had found as an undisputed fact that Voysey and Verderber were responsible for negotiation of 213A on behalf of [WPPSS]. WPPSS did not challenge this finding in its motion to revise the court's order. In fact, WPPSS did not raise this argument any time before trial. The court acted within its discretion in refusing to allow WPPSS to pursue that argument after trial had begun. 65 II. PDM-II: PDM's CROSS-APPEAL (The Collection Action)