This case is clearly distinguishable because it involves an attempt to add a new theory of recovery to the complaint after plaintiff rested his case. In the case sub judice, Commerce Center has maintained throughout the proceedings that the various construction defects by Contractor contributed to the leaks. Commerce Center did not allege a new cause of action nor did it present an unforseen argument late in the proceedings. II. Admissibility of Commerce Center’s June 25 and July 26, 1996, Letters The courts favor compromise; accordingly, evidence relating to settlements is generally not admissible to prove liability. Rule 408, SCRE; Hunter v. Hyder, 236 S.C. 378, 114 S.E.2d 493 (1960); Hall v. Palmetto Enterprises II, Inc., of Clinton, 282 S.C. 87, 317 S.E.2d 140 (Ct.App.1984) (<HOLDING>). The June 25, 1996, letter from Commerce
holding that an offer to compromise is generally not admissible as an admission holding that statement within expert report is not a judicial admission but is instead an admission by party holding that when an appellant fails to offer an argument on an issue that issue is abandoned holding that an offer to donate cannot be an offer to sell holding that when an appellant fails to offer an argument on an issue such as cat relief that issue is abandoned