about the cireum-stances surrounding the hiring of Petti-grew to rewrite the airport rules and standards. Thus, their testimony would have been relevant to Turner's claim that the rewritten rules and standards were void because Pettigrew was hired without Ferries' permission. However, as we discussed above, that claim is without merit because the Board possessed independent statutory authority to hire outside attorneys. See supra Part ILA. Consequent ly, Turner could not have prevailed on that claim at trial even if Ferries and Pet-tigrew had testified. Because his claim was without merit, the trial court's exclusion of witnesses to testify about that claim is, at best, harmless error. See Harlan Sprague Dawley, Inc. v. S.E. Lab Group, Inc., 644 N.E.2d 615, 622 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (<HOLDING>), reh'g denied, trans. denied. Turner also
holding that remand for explicit findings was not necessary where it was readily apparent that the trial  court accepted one partys testimony and rejected the other partys holding that the trial courts exclusion of evidence about a partys damages was at best harmless error because the partys method of calculating damages contravened indiana law and was without merit holding method of accounting in administering a contract was inadmissible evidence of a partys interpretation holding exclusion was harmless error holding in all cases that where the evidence of guilt was sufficient any error in the exclusion of lastminute evidence and testimony was harmless error