1. Did the trial court Multnomah County Circuit Court State of Oregon error in ruling that as a matter of law when there exists disputed genuine issue of material fact between the parties requiring a trial to resolve?

2. Did the trial court Multnomah County Circuit Court State of Oregon error in ruling that as a matter of law when in applying the law to the disputed facts, movant party Stan The Hot Water Man is not clearly entitled by law to judgment?

3. Did the trial court Multnomah County Circuit Court State of Oregon error in ruling that as a matter of law when defendant-Respondent Stan The Hot Water claims things, while Petitioner on writ of certiorari Linh Thi Minh Tran makes different claims?

4. Did the trial court Multnomah County Circuit Court State of Oregon error in ruling that as a matter of law when there is disagreement on important facts, summary judgment is not appropriate, and the case should go to trial where all witnesses are done under oath on the witness stand at trial?

5. Did the trial court Multnomah County Circuit Court State of Oregon error in ruling that as a matter of law when there is disagreement on important facts because Brent Philip Lackey 's claims that he could charge excessive amount $189.00 without a prior written agreement of Petitioner on writ of certiorari Linh Thi Minh Tran?

6. Did the trial court Multnomah County Circuit Court State of Oregon error in ruling that as a matter of law when there is disagreement on important facts because Brent Philip Lackey 's claims that he could uninstall/take away/steal parts of petitioner on writ of certiorari Linh Thi Minh Tran 's hot water heater without her prior written consent to allow him to do it but petitioner on writ of certiorari Linh Thi Minh Tran 's disagreement and makes different claims?

7. Did the trial court Multnomah County Circuit Court State of Oregon error in ruling that as a matter of law when petitioner on writ of certiorari Linh Thi Minh Tran sues respondent on writ of certiorari Stan The Hot Water Man under the doctrine of respondeat superior, which provides that "an employer is vicariously liable for an employee 's tortious conduct, including intentional torts, when the employee acts within the scope,of employment. "?

8. Did the trial court Multnomah County Circuit Court State of Oregon error in ruling that as matter of law when plaintiff-appellant makes claims that Brent Philip Lackey, employee of respondent on writ of certiorari Stan the Hot Water Man destroyed and damaged on petitioner on writ of certiorari Linh Thi Minh Tran ' s property hot water lheater and gas furnace blower machine?

9. Did the trial court Multnomah County Circuit Court State of Oreg

Did the trial court err in granting summary judgment when there were disputed issues of material fact?