taxi business. This means he cannot manage or fly for a competing air taxi business. But it also means he cannot own, finance, direct, control, supervise, or give advice of a significant nature to a competing air taxi business personally or through others. And this prohibition applies even against involvement for the benefit of another, such as his employer; Sla-gle is forbidden to compete himself, and he is forbidden to help others compete. (Emphasis added). AA argues that the highlighted language was contrary to its theory that Slagle, as manager of the Salmon Falls Resort, merely acted as a consumer of air taxi services. The superior court was under no obligation to tailor the jury instructions to arguments made by AA. Cf. Clary Ins. Agency v. Doyle, 620 P.2d 194, 201 (Alaska 1980) (<HOLDING>). AA advocated instructing the jury that
holding that the plaintiffs misconceived legal theory did not preclude it from obtaining relief under another theory holding summary judgment appropriate when the facts in evidence supported another plausible theory not the plaintiffs theory of the case holding that plaintiffs are ordinarily entitled to instructions consonant with their theory of the case where evidentiary support for the theory exists holding that the jury need not agree on the theory supporting the conviction if there is sufficient evidence to support either theory holding that if basis described the parties were therefore aware of plaintiffs legal theory even where the theory was mischaracterized citation omitted