ÿWPCÿ …# VU:a %› 0(¡w@É4  , B4 v 0J~ 0TÈ 0^ 0hz 0râ 0|T 0†Ð 0V 1uæ 0d[ U*¿ B)é DC AMU×¢ Byv~–vÓ D3ç 0@ AOZÆ© 0Do D/³ Bâ˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ DDD  D  Ó€z!x3|xC:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d!!!!7Border 1dd€-"Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ÍÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÔ€ ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€ XÔÌÌò òOctober€10,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó ó dPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Geneva ÒÒ  BA Op Geneva Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ ÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€7àXXdædÈ7Ñ›à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌAMERICAN€ENVIRONMENTALà àà à)ÌPROTECTION,€INC.,à àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellantà àà àò ò)€€Shelby€Chancery€No.€101154„1€R.D.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9509„CH„00202ÌÙ€€ÙœßL€#$";+'h|k ` Å `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌBOARD€OF€EDUCATION€OF€THEà à)ÌMEMPHIS€CITY€SCHOOLS,€andà à)ÌENVIRONMENTAL€PROTECTIONà à)ÌSYSTEMS,€INC.,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendants/Appellees.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€SHELBY€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€MEMPHIS,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€NEAL€SMALL,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌò òANDREW€M.€CATEó óÌò òDAVID€J.€WAYNICKó óÌò òWAYNICK,€CATE€&€TAYLORó óÌNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€AppellantÌÌò òERNEST€G.€KELLY,€JR.ó óÌò òEVANS€&€PETREEó óÌMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Appellee,€Board€of€EducationÌof€the€Memphis€City€SchoolsÌÌò òMICHAEL€B.€NEALó ó€Ìò òKRIVCHER,€MAGIDS,€NEAL,€ÌCOTTAM€&€CAMPBELL,€P.C.Ìó óMemphis,€TennesseeÌAttorney€for€Appellee,€Environmental€ÌProtection€Systems,€Inc.ò òÌÌÌÌœAFFIRMED›ÌœÌÌ›ÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àœò òALAN›€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÓÓó óà àAmerican€Environmental€Protection,€Inc.€(ð ðAEPðð)€appeals€from€the€trial€courtððsÏÑ7€7àXXdæXXdæ7Ñjudgment€holding€that€it€was€not€entitled€to€recover€the€costs€of€removing€asbestos„containing€materials€that€were€in€excess€of€the€amounts€specified€in€the€original€bidÏdocuments.€€€AEP€has€raised€two€issues€for€our€consideration,€which€are:€(1)€whetherÏthe€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€AEP€receivedÏadequate€compensation€for€its€services,€and€(2)€whether€the€evidence€preponderatesÏagainst€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€AEP€was€barred€from€recovery€due€to€itsÏnegligence€and/or€assumption€of€the€risk.€€We€find€that€the€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€these€findings;€therefore,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€courtÏbelow.ÌÌà àIn€January€1991,€the€Board€of€Education€of€the€Memphis€City€Schools€(ð ðtheÏboardðð)€€invited€qualified€contractors€to€submit€bids€for€the€removal€of€asbestos„containing€materials€from€Hamilton€Elementary€School.€œ€The›€board€hiredÏEnvironmental€Protection€Systems,€Inc.€(ð ðEPSðð),€an€engineering€firm,€to€prepare€œtheÏproject›€bid€documents€for€distribution€to€prospective€bidders.€œThe›€bid€documentsÍincluded€a€project€manual,€which€stated€that€the€quantity€of€materials€to€be€removedÏwas€3,000€square€feet€of€surfacing€material€in€the€œcafeteria,›€and€1,500€square€feet€ofÏsurfacing€material€in€the€indoor€recreation€œarea.›€In€addition€to€the€stated€quantities,€theÏproject€manual€contained€a€scaled€drawing€of€the€areas€from€which€the€asbestos„containing€materials€were€to€be€removed.€ÌÌà àPrior€to€AEPððs€submission€of€its€bid€on€the€project,€Terry€Reeves,€president€ofÏAEP,€discovered€that€the€quantity€of€materials€stated€in€the€bid€documents€wasÏsubstantially€less€than€the€quantity€of€materials€indicated€in€the€scaled€drawing.€œWhen›ÏReeves€discovered€this€discrepancy,€he€allegedly€told€another€AEP€employee€to€callÏWard€Lindsay,€asbestos€program€œmanager›€for€EPS.€€œFollowing›€the€allegedÏconversation€with€Lindsay,€the€content€of€which€was€inadmissible€hearsay,€AEPÏsubmitted€its€bid€based€on€the€quantity€stated€in€the€contract,€4,500€square€feet.€ÏœLinsday›€denies€that€he€had€a€discussion€with€anyone€from€AEP€prior€to€the€submissionÏof€bids.€€ÌÌà àAEP€was€the€successful€œbidder€on€the€project€for›€œ$96,000.00.€€This€bid€was›Ïbased€on€œthe€stated€quantity€of€4,500›€œsquare€feet.€€After›€AEP€arrived€at€the€site,€itÏdiscovered€that€the€material€to€be€removed€was€more€than€twice€the€œamount›€stated€inÏthe€project€manual.€€œIn€fact,›€the€actual€quantities€to€be€removed€corresponded€to€theÏquantities€indicated€in€the€scaled€drawing.€ÌÌà àœAEP›€submitted€a€change€order€to€Lindsay€in€which€AEP€requested€an€additionalÍœ$43,000.00€for€the€removal€of€all€of€the€material.›€œ€Lindsay›€allegedly€told€Reeves€œthatÏthe€change€order€would€be›€approved€by€the€board.€€However,€the€board€œrefused€to€payÏAEP€the€additional€$43,000.00.›€œAlthough€AEP›€œknew€that›€it€would€not€be€paid€for€itsÏwork€in€removing€the€additional€œmaterial,›€œAEP€nevertheless€continued›€to€work€on€theÏproject€œin€order€to€avoid€being€cited›€for€breach€of€contract.€œAEP›€removed€all€of€theÏasbestos„containing€materials€from€the€subject€areas,€thereby€incurring€a€loss€ofÏ$52,535.00.€ÌÌà àAEP€brought€this€œaction,€alleging›€that€the€board€was€liable€for€breach€of€contractÏfor€failing€to€approve€the€change€œorder.›€œAlternatively,›€AEP€alleged€that€it€was€entitled€toÏrecover€œthe€reasonable›€value€of€its€services€under€quantum€meruit.€œ€AEPððs›€cause€ofÏaction€against€EPS€was€based€on€intentional€and/or€negligent€misrepresentation.€ÏAEP€alleged€that€it€reasonably€relied€on€EPSðð€erroneous€statement€of€the€quantity€ofÏmaterials€to€be€removed€in€preparing€and€submitting€its€bid.€Ìà àò òÌà àó óThe€trial€court€held€that€although€EPS€erroneously€stated€the€quantity€ofÏmaterials€in€the€bid€documents,€AEP€knew€about€the€mistake€prior€to€the€time€that€itÏcommenced€work.€€œFurthermore,›€the€trial€court€œheld,€AEPððs›€bid€was€within€the€range€ofÏreasonableness€for€the€project€because€œanother›€bidder€submitted€a€bid€for€the€actualÏamount€of€square€footage€œthat€was€only€slightly€more€than€that›€of€AEPððs€œbid.€€Finally,›Ïthe€trial€court€held€that€the€board€was€not€liable€for€breach€of€contract€because€theÏboard€never€agreed€to€the€proposed€change€œorders.›ÌÌà àThe€trial€courtððs€findings€in€this€case€are€reviewed€by€this€court€òòde€novoóó,Ïaccompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness,€unless€the€evidence€preponderatesÏotherwise.€€T.R.A.P.€13(d).ÌÌà àWe€will€first€address€AEPððs€breach€of€contract€and€quantum€meruit€claimsÏagainst€the€board.€€AEP€argues€that€the€board€breached€œits›€œcontract€with€AEP›€by€failingÏto€œapprove›€a€change€order€for€the€additional€work.€€In€support€of€its€position,€AEP€reliesÏon€industry€custom.€€œHowever,€AEP›€has€cited€no€legal€authority€for€its€position,€nor€hasÏit€directed€us€to€any€provision€of€the€contract€that€obligates€the€board€to€approveÏchange€orders€for€additional€work.€€In€addition,€Hank€Ciarloni,€general€manager€of€anÏasbestos€removal€company,€testified€that€this€was€not€the€type€of€situation€in€which€aÏchange€order€would€have€been€appropriate€because€the€additional€square€footageÏwas€not€an€unforeseen€or€concealed€site€condition.€€œThe›€trial€court€agreed€withÏCiarloni€and€œnoted€that€any€change€order€procedure€would€not€bind€the€board€to€payÏmore€than€the€contract€price.€€We€do€not€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€trial€courtððs€determination€in€this€respect.€€€Therefore,€we€hold€that€the€board€did€notÏbreach€its€contract€by€failing€to€approve€the€change€orders.€€ÌÌà àSimilarly,€we€reject€AEPððs€contention€that€it€is€entitled€to€recovery€underÏquantum€meruit.€€The€doctrine€of€quantum€meruit€allows€a€party€who€has€providedÏgoods€or€services€to€another€to€recover€the€reasonable€value€of€those€goods€orÏservices€as€long€as€the€party€seeking€to€recover€can€demonstrate€that:€(1)€there€is€noÏexisting,€enforceable€contract€covering€the€same€subject€matter;€(2)€he€or€she€providedÍvaluable€goods€or€services;€(3)€the€party€against€whom€recovery€is€sought€received€theÏgoods€or€services;€(4)€both€parties€should€have€reasonably€understood€that€theÏprovider€of€the€goods€or€services€expected€to€be€paid;€and€(5)€it€would€be€unjust€for€theÏparty€that€received€the€benefit€of€the€goods€or€services€to€retain€them€without€paying€forÏthem.€€òòCastelli€v.€Lienóó,€910€S.W.2d€420,€427€(Tenn.€App.€1995).ÌÌà àIn€the€present€case,€Reeves€conceded€that€the€contract€contemplated€theÏremoval€of€all€asbestos€materials€located€in€the€cafeteria€and€the€indoor€recreationÏarea.€Consequently,€we€believe€that€AEP€has€not€satisfied€the€first€requisite€for€aÏrecovery€in€quantum€meruit€because€there€existed€an€enforceable€contract€betweenÏAEP€and€the€board€that€covered€the€same€subject€matter.€ÌÌà àIn€our€opinion,€AEPððs€cause€of€action€against€EPS,€which€is€based€on€negligentÏand/or€intentional€misrepresentation,€must€also€fail.€€In€order€to€prove€intentional€orÏfraudulent€misrepresentation,€AEP€must€show:€(1)€that€EPS€made€an€intentionalÏmisrepresentation€of€a€material€fact€in€order€to€mislead€or€to€obtain€an€unfairÏadvantage€over€AEP;€(2)€that€the€representation€was€made€with€knowledge€of€its€falsityÏand€with€fraudulent€intent;€(3)€that€the€representation€was€of€a€material€existing€fact;Ïand€(4)€that€AEP€reasonably€relied€on€the€representation€to€its€injury.€€òòGodwin€Aircraft,ÏInc.€v.€Houstonóó,€851€S.W.2d€816,€821€(Tenn.€App.€1992).ÌÌà àEven€assuming€that€AEP€could€establish€the€first€three€of€the€aboveÏrequriements,€we€find€that€AEP€has€failed€to€satisfy€the€critical€element€of€reasonableÍreliance.€€It€is€undisputed€that€AEP€discovered€the€discrepancy€between€the€statedÏquantity€and€the€quantity€portrayed€in€the€scaled€drawing€prior€to€submitting€its€bid.ÏAEP€had€ample€opportunity€to€examine€and€measure€the€site€prior€to€submitting€its€bid,Ïbut€declined€to€do€so.€€In€fact,€the€bid€documents€expressly€state€that€the€bidder€isÏresponsible€for€verification€of€the€square€footage.€€Specifically,€the€documents€stateÏthat€ð ðplans€are€schematic€in€nature.€€The€contractor€is€responsible€for€field€verificationÏof€exact€quantities.ðð€€The€project€manual€also€states:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àBidders€shall€carefully€examine€site€and€documents€toÏobtain€first€hand€knowledge€of€existing€conditions.€ÏContractor€will€not€be€given€extra€payment€for€conditionsÏwhich€can€be€determined€by€examining€site€andÏdocuments.€ò òÌÌÓÓà àÌà àó óCiarloni€testified€that€his€company€was€one€of€the€companies€that€bid€on€theÏHamilton€Elementary€school€job.€Ciarloni€stated€that€he€relied€on€the€scaled€drawing,Ïrather€than€the€stated€quantities,€in€calculating€his€bid€on€the€project.€Ciarloni€alsoÏwent€to€the€site€and€measured€all€of€the€areas€from€which€the€materials€were€to€beÏremoved.€ÌÌà àFrom€the€foregoing€evidence,€we€cannot€say€that€AEPððs€reliance€on€the€statedÏquantities€in€the€bid€documents€was€reasonable€or€justifiable.€€Because›€an€action€forÏnegligent€misrepresentation€also€requires€a€showing€of€justifiable€reliance,€we€mustÏdeny€AEP€recovery€on€this€œbasis›€as€well.€€òòAtkins€v.€Kirkpatrickóó,€823€S.W.2d€547,€552Ï(Tenn.€App.€1991).ÌÌà àAccordingly,€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Costs€on€appeal€areÏadjudged€against€œAEP.ÌÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.›Ì