the language is clear") (internal quotations and citations omitted) (omission in original). 2 . American also contends the trial court erred in not holding Fairbourn to the standard of a fidu-clary with relation to American. American asserts it raised this issue in closing arguments, which were not recorded. However, the trial court did not mention the argument in its memorandum decision. We cannot rely on American's assertion that is unsupported by the record on appeal, and therefore, we cannot consider this issue on appeal. See State v. Marquez, 2002 UT App 127,¶ 7, 54 P.3d 637 (refusing to address an argument not preserved in the trial court). 3 . See, eg., Finno Dev., Inc. v. Smedes Realty, No. CV010163687S, 2001 WL 420584, at *1, 2001 Conn.Super. LEXIS 995, at "3 (April 11, 2001) (<HOLDING>); Don J. McMurray Co. v. Wiesman, 199 Neb. 494,
holding that lack of closing date in option contract did not preclude enforcement by specific performance holding that broker whose contract called for commission on sale of property was not entitled to commission on transfer of property to partnership in which owner had an interest and that because broker was not entitled to commission under terms of his contract he also could not recover against a third person on theory of tortious interference with that contract holding that contract providing commission was to be paid within 72 hours of closing did not condition the payment of commission on the closing holding brokers were not entitled to commission where agreement provided commission was payable at closing of real estate transaction because brokers did not produce clients that closed holding broker not a party to a purchase contract and therefore not liable for attorneys fees even though provision providing for payment of the brokers commission was contained in the contract