Jоhn C. Wray II appeals a money judgment obtained by C. Norris Buckingham as a result of a bench trial of a contract action in the district court for Sarpy County. We affirm.
In Novembеr 1979 the parties entered a written contract wherein Wray agreed to stock and maintain an inventory for an auto parts store, K-B Standard Auto, Inc. (K-B Auto), owned by Buckingham, in Carson, Iowa. Wray owned three auto parts stores in the metro-Omaha area and agreed to purchase K-B Auto’s inventory on hand 1 year after Wray entered the contract with Buckingham. The contract required Wray’s purchase of the inventory at 90 percent of the original cost of such inventory.
The contract also stated Wray would be reimbursed for his *808 travel to and from Buckingham’s Iowa store but would not receive any compensation for his services to K-B Auto.
In connection with the Buckingham-Wray contract, Wray received discounts from wholesale suрpliers on purchases of inventory for K-B Auto, as well as overall enhancement of his business reputation resulting from substantial purchases of parts for stores serviced by Wray. Wray purchased a large inventory for K-B Auto. However, by midsummer of 1980 it was obvious that K-B Auto was not doing well, and in December Buckingham closed his store.
In late October or еarly November of 1980, Buckingham sought performance of the contract provision for Wray’s purchase of the K-B Auto inventory. Buckingham tried to contact Wray through inquiries at Wray’s former parts stores, which had been sold sometime after Wray entered the contract with Buckingham. Buckingham made several calls to Omaha parts wholesalers who had dealt with Wray and asked the whereabouts of Wray. Attempting to establish contact at Wray’s residence, Buckingham referred to an Omaha telephone directory, although the telephone book was 1 year out of date. Also, based on a lead from one of the warehouses which had done business with Wray, Buckingham called Kansas State University on belief that Wray had enrolled in law school at that university. Buckingham was unsuccessful in his efforts to locate Wray. Buckingham attempted to mitigate damagеs by returning K-B Auto’s inventory to the original wholesalers. Buckingham, unable to resell a substantial part of the inventory purchased by Wray, brought suit against Wray concerning the inventory which Buckingham could not liquidate.
At trial, without objection, Buckingham testified that Wray had said he would be compensated for his services to K-B Auto by large quantities of parts ordered by Buckingham and cash payments for such parts delivered. These cash transactions with Buckingham contributed to increased discounts received by Wray from wholesale supрliers for inventories acquired by Wray’s various auto parts stores. The trial court found a breach of contract by Wray and awarded damages to Buckingham for the unliquidated inventory.
Wray assigns the following errors on the part of the district *809 court: (1) Denial of Wray’s motion for dismissal of the proceedings on the basis of forum non conveniens, inasmuch as Wray claims the proper forum should have been in Iowa; (2) Admitting testimony prohibited by the parol evidence rule; (3) Finding a valid contract supported by consideration; (4) Finding that Buckingham used reasonable efforts to notify Wray and request purchase of the inventory; and (5) Awarding prejudgment interest generally, and specifically in utilizing the law of Nebraskа instead of the law of Iowa concerning prejudgment interest.
With regard to Wray’s first assignment of error, involving forum non conveniens, the record does not contain Wray’s motion or any disposition made by the district court. Consequently, such absence eliminates any necessity that we consider Wray’s first assignment of error. In the absence of extraordinary circumstances, an appellate court will not consider or review a ruling of a trial court when the questioned ruling is not a part of the trial record. We will not sрeculate about proceedings in a trial court but must rely upon the record presented for review. Cf.
First Nat. Bank v. Schroeder,
Regarding Wray’s question about consideration supporting the Buckingham contract, we held in
Abraham v. Abraham,
The contract before us does not negate consideration, although the agreement does dictate that Wray shall not receive any compensation for services rendered to K-B Auto. As far as the Buckingham-Wray contract is concеrned, compensation and consideration are neither identical nor synonymous.
*810
Valuable consideration to support a contract need not be onе translatable into dollars and cents. If consideration consists of performance or promise of performance, which the promisor treats and considers as having value to the promisor, there is sufficient consideration for a contract. See
Asmus
v.
Longenecker,
A suit brought to recover damages for breach of contract is a law action. Findings of a court in a law action in which a jury has been waived have the effect of a jury verdict and will not be disturbed on appeal unless clearly wrong.
Nerud v. Haybuster Mfg.,
Whether Buckingham acted reasonably in his attempts to notify Wray for the purpose of demanding performance of the contractual provision requiring Wray to purchase the inventory was a question of fact and was determined adversely to Wray. Cf.
Fink v. Denbeck,
In
Philip G. Johnson & Co. v. Salmen,
“Where the amount of a claim is liquidated, compensation in the form of prejudgment interest is allowed as a matter of right. ‘A claim is liquidated if the evidence furnishes data which, if believed, makes it *811 possible to compute the amount with exactness, without reliance upon opinion or discretion.’ ”
First Data Resources, Inc.
v.
Omaha Steaks Int., Inc.,
Buckingham’s claim can be computed with the necessary degree of exactness. Wrаy did not question the amount realized by Buckingham on liquidation of inventory, and under the circumstances there was no reasonable controversy concerning Buckingham’s right to rеcover. Wray agreed to pay for Buckingham’s retained inventory at 90 percent of the original price for that inventory. The original prices for the inventory were before the court. The computation with exactness which is envisioned in
First Data Resources, supra,
exists in the case before us. The award of prejudgment interest is correct. See
Ellis & Guy Advg.
v.
Cohen, ante
p. 340,
Wray’s clаim that Iowa prejudgment interest rates should have been utilized, rather than Nebraska rates, is without merit. No evidence was introduced on the applicable interest rаtes in Iowa. Therefore, it must be assumed that interest rates in Iowa, pertinent to a situation as exists in the present case, are identical to interest rates in the State of Nebraska. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that the common law or statutes of another jurisdiction are the same as the law of the State of Nebraska.
See Abramson
v.
Abramson,
The judgment of the trial court is correct and affirmed in all respects.
Affirmed.