The appellants requested to re-open the appeal for further argument on the correct Initial Fair Market Value date for a property.
The Court of Appeal denied the request, noting that the interpretation of the agreement regarding the valuation date was not directly addressed at trial or on appeal, but arose indirectly regarding whether an enforceable agreement existed.
The Court held that the issue of the valuation date was not central to the appeal and that the record amply supported the trial judge's finding of a valid oral agreement.
The interpretation of the agreement was left to be resolved by an arbitrator.
