In Jones v. Kvistad (1971) 19 Cal.App.3d 836, "Jones did not seek to vacate the award in the trial court but only to modify and correct it," while on appeal, Jones "asserted . . . a new claim for relief not made below, i.e., that the trial court should have vacated the award." (Id. at pp. 841-842.) In approaching the issue, the appellate court stated: "Ordinarily a party is prohibited from asserting on appeal claims to relief not asserted or requested in the court below. . Assuming, arguendo, that it may be said that Jones did seek such relief in the court below because she did tender to the trial court the question that an arbitrable issue had not been determined by the arbitrators and evidence to establish such failure was presented at the hearing, we proceed to determine Jones' contention on its merits since relief by way of vacating the award was the proper remedy if Jones is correct in her contention." (Id. at p. 842.) Thus, in Jones, the reviewing court made the assumption that Jones duly tendered the issue to the trial court in the first instance.