This issue was not raised or argued before the Trial Court. Therefore, we will not consider it on appeal. Helfinstine v. Martin, 561 P.2d 951 (Okla. 1977); Dumas v. Conyer, 448 P.2d 835 (Okla. 1968). Appellant contends under his second proposition that the Trial Court erred in refusing to find the instrument used in this contract was a negotiable instrument, that it was used in a consumer transaction, and that it violated the Credit Code. Appellant cites no cases to support this position, but relies entirely on the Oklahoma statutes.
1957). In such matters, we must examine the entire record and will not disturb the trial court's decision unless it is clearly against the weight of the evidence or contrary to law or established principles of equity; Dumas v. Conyer, 448 P.2d 835 (Okla. 1968). The trial court found that "management of [SSLIC and its attorneys] lacked an objective basis for a belief that [SSLIC] was solvent within the meaning of the Oklahoma Insurance Code, or could be rendered solvent by actions of [SSLIC] alone or in concert with the Oklahoma Insurance Department."
1970); Morris v. Pierce et al., 188 Okla. 396, 110 P.2d 295 (1940). Also Dumas v. Conyer, 448 P.2d 835 (Okla. 1968). In the instant case, a mistake of fact has occurred, which was a simple human error.