contract.” Because of this ambiguity, Hardee’s briefed both issues in its memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment. In their response, Plaintiffs did not clarify which theory of recovery they were pursuing. In fact, Plaintiffs completely failed to respond to Hardee’s arguments and otherwise did not provide any support for an implied-in-law theory of recovery. Even on appeal, Plaintiffs do not clearly state that they are seeking recovery on an im~ plied-in-law basis. Because Plaintiffs failed to brief the issue before the district court, and because the district court did not rule on the issue in its opinion, we find that Plaintiffs abandoned their implied-in- law contractual claim. Preferred Rx, Inc. v. American Prescription Plan, Inc., 46 F.3d 535, 549 (6th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). II. Misrepresentation Claims Plaintiffs argue
holding that court will not consider issue raised for first time on appeal holding that because a claim was never raised in the district court this court would not consider it for the first time on appeal holding that issues raised for the first time on appeal will not be considered holding that subject to limited exceptions this court will not consider issues not presented to the district court but raised for the first time on appeal holding that issues not properly presented to the bankruptcy court  cannot be raised  for the first time on appeal