Opinion ID: 73950
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sale Issue

Text: Rose argues that the district court erroneously ruled that Hanson was entitled to the first $375,000.00 from the sale of the Falcon pursuant to paragraph 9 of the 5 We also note that the district court did not rely on, or even mention, the “whereas” clause in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. 12 June 3, 1992 purchase agreement. He argues that Hanson should not be able to enforce the provisions of the June 3, 1992 purchase agreement because Hanson breached that contract. Hanson, on the other hand, argues that we should not consider this argument because Rose failed to raise it in the district court. See Technical Coating Applicators, Inc. v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 157 F.3d 843, 846 (11th Cir. 1998) (declining to consider an argument on appeal because the district court did not have an opportunity to address the argument.) We agree. Because the district court primarily based its ruling on the waiver issue, the district court did not make a finding as to whether Hanson was entitled to the sales proceeds.6 Further, we note that the district court dismissed Hanson’s counterclaim for breach of contract and never reached the issue of the parties’ rights under the June 3, 1992 purchase agreement. Accordingly, we need not address this argument.