as Palmer even notes, only stands for the proposition that damages need not be proved with mathematical exactitude. Bumgarner says nothing about additur. We therefore decline to address the issue. AgStar Fin. Servs., ACA v. Nw. Sand & Gravel, Inc., 161 Idaho 801, 816, 391 P.3d 1271, 1286 (2017) (“A party waives an issue cited on appeal if either authority or argument is lacking, not just if both are lacking.” (quoting Gem State Ins. Co. v. Hutchison, 145 Idaho 10, 16, 175 P.3d 172, 178 (2007))). Furthermore, Palmer has not demonstrated that a substantial right has been affected by the district court’s grant of additur. The Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “[t]he court at every stage of the proceeding must disregard any error or defect i ho 240, 250, 245 P.3d 992, 1002 (2010) (<HOLDING>). B. Whether the district court abused its
holding that failure to instruct on an essential element was harmless error because the element was so clearly established holding that the district courts failure to instruct the jury as to the proper standard of proof constituted plain error recognizing under plain error review that the burden to show that substantial rights have been prejudiced is on the party that failed to raise the issue below and for an error to have affected substantial rights the error must have affected the outcome of the district court proceedings holding that even if district courts failure to give statute of frauds instruction was error it was harmless because appellants failed to demonstrate how the failure to instruct on the statute of frauds affected their substantial rights holding the trial courts failure to convert a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment after an affidavit was filed in response to the motion was harmless error where the affidavit had no impact on thedecisive statute of frauds issue