Opinion ID: 330720
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Availability

Text: 14 Item 85(a)(1) requires that in a multiple-lot shipment the entire shipment shall be available to the carrier for immediate transportation at the time of the first pickup. Inland alleges a violation of this requirement for the first time on appeal. Although unavailability is alleged in the complaint, how it came to be there is illuminating and, we believe, critical. 15 At the hearing on the motion for summary judgment, Inland requested permission to make an oral amendment to its complaint, although it previously had not served notice in accordance with a local rule. The proposed amendment was stated but the record demonstrates that no allegation was made to the effect that Diamond had not complied with the availability requirement. When Diamond stipulated that the amendment contained no surprise or prejudice, the district court granted leave to amend. The availability issue was not at that time an issue in the case, was not argued before the court and, naturally, was not addressed in the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. Yet, in its formal written amendment filed after judgment, Inland alleged violation of the availability requirement. 16 We refuse to consider the availability issue. The written amendment did not conform to the oral amendment allowed by the district court. The issue was never presented to the district judge and he had no opportunity to rule upon it.