WPCB! # VU:a % 0w@ 4   0? 0DF  0J 0T 0^. 0h 0r 0|f 0 0h 1uU,m 0dU, B)U*FB)pDC AM) D3zy 0@ v~Lv AO 0D D/ B%!HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 ,  AZ"Arial RegularX(,$  HTR[A' Legal[A' LegalA' LegalA' LegalTXXXX7>XXdXXd7 YZ[D\]D^_`abӀU!t3|xm((3 $ ,!  HTR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'TXXXX7XXdd7   `   0  (#$  0  HR2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco d<  9p`(Arial% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd-'C << G  !  #d#%    H \RA'\#d#  %   YYY FILED%X September9,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.%AppellateCourtClerk $$$$'dxd p !  #d#%    H \RA'\#d#   $       Laborcostswere$26,950.00. o !#d#%    H \RA'\#d#   $       Thehousecost$137,676.63,inclusive.("$    PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'@Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &##Xd&###Xd#%    H \RA'\#Xd##Xd#     L()';+'h|` . `LߛINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSFORTENNESSEEWESTERNSECTIONATKNOXVILLE   HAROLDWAYNEGIBSONandwife, )SYLVIAGIBSON,    ) SULLIVANCHANCERY      ) Plaintiffs/Appellants  ) NO.03A019601CH00019      )v.      )      )KITG.McGLOTHLIN,d/b/a/  )KITMcGLOTHLINBUILDERS,INC., )andKITG.McGLOTHLINd/b/a  )McGLOTHLINBUILDERS,INC.,  ) andMcGLOTHLINBUILDERS,INC., )      )  Defendants/Appellees  ) AFFIRMED.MarkS.Dessauer,Kingsport,FortheAppellants.LarryRoberts,Kingsport,fortheAppellees.   OPINION         INMAN,SeniorJudge Thisisanactionfordamagesforbreachofaconstructioncontractandofanimpliedwarrantyofgoodworkmanshipandmaterialsandfornegligentconstruction. InNovember1992thepartiesenteredintoacontractwherebythedefendantagreedtoprovidethelabornecessarytoconstructaresidenceonalotownedbytheplaintiffsinaccordancewiththeplansandspecificationsfurnishedtohim. +    Theplaintiffspaidthedefendantthecontractualamountandtookpossessionofthehouse,thereafterpresentingtohimapunchlistofallegeddefectsintheconstruction.Specifically,theycomplainedthatthedefendantconstructedadeckratherthanaporch,contrarytotheplansandspecifications;failedtoproperlyinstallvinylsiding;failedtoinstallvariousdoorsproperly;andfailedtolevelthefloors.Variousotherdefectswerealleged. Thedefendantdeniedthathefailedtoconstructthehouseinaworkmanlikemannerorthathewasguiltyofnegligence.Heallegedthattheplaintiffswerenegligent,andthatanydamagestheyincurredshouldbeapportionedunderprinciplesofcomparativefault.Hefurtherallegedthatanydeviationfromthebuildingplanwasrequestedbytheplaintiffsoragreedtobythem. Theplaintiffspresentedevidenceof36allegeddefectsinthefinishedproduct,someinvolvingdefectiveworkmanship,someinvolvingdefectivematerials,someinvolvingdeviationsfromthebuildingplan,andsomeinvolvingnegligenceintheconstruction. Amajorissueinvolvedtheporch.Theplaintiffsinsistthatthedefendantconstructedadeckratherthanaporch,astheplansprovided,inthatsalttreateddeckingwasusedinlieuoftongueandgrooveplanking,picketsratherthanpostswereused,landscapingpostswereinstalledinlieuofcolumns,withcertainotherlesserchanges.Itisnotdisputedthatthedefendantdeviatedfromthebuildingplanintheseparticulars;thedefendantsaysthattheplaintiffsagreedtothechangesanddeviations,otherwisetherewasnoreasontohavedoneso.Moreover,hesaysthattheallegedporchproblemswerenevermentioneduntilthislawsuitwasfiledandspecificallythatnonewaslistedonthepunchlist. TheChancellorfoundthattheplaintiffsagreedtotheporchchanges.Ourreviewisdenovoontherecordaccompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectnessunlesstheevidenceotherwisepreponderates,Tenn.R.App.P.,Rule13(d),andwecannotfindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthisfinding.Superimposedistheissueofthecredibilityofthosetestifying,concerningwhichweknownothing,thatbeingtheprerogativeoftheChancellor.Harwellv.Harwell,612S.W.2d182(Tenn.Ct.App.1988). TheappellantcomplainsoftheactionoftheChancellorinfindingthat theappropriatemethodisthroughbreachofwarrantyandnotnegligence,therebylimitingtheplaintiffstheoryofrecovery.WehavenoquarrelwiththeplaintiffsargumentthatTennesseelawrecognizesthetortofnegligentconstruction;wedoubtitsapplicationtothepeculiarfactsofthiscase,sincethepartiesrights,dutiesandliabilitiesariseoutofthewrittencontract,thebreachofwhichencompassesalloftheallegednegligentactsofthedefendant.Stateddifferently,itmakesnodifferencehowthetheoryofrecoveryisstyled;plenaryreliefmaybeaccordedtheplaintiffsunderabreachofcontracttheoryorbreachofimpliedwarranty.Assumingtheevidencesupportedaclaimofnegligentconstruction,astheplaintiffsurge,thesameevidencewouldsupportaclaimforbreachofcontractorimpliedwarranty.Seee.g.,Colev.Clifton,833S.W.2d75(Tenn.Ct.App.1992). TheappellantsnextcomplainthattheChancellorerredinexcludingthetestimonyofLindaHelton,whomtheypresentedasanexpertinthebuildingtrade. Theexpertiseofthewitnesswasquestioneduponhervoirdire,andtheChancellorreservedjudgmentonobjectionstohertestimony.Shetestifiedaboutthedeck,thatthehousewasnotlevel,thatthechimneytopwasnotlevel,andtovariousotherdefects,allattributabletopoorworkmanship,whichsheopinedwouldcost$97,942.23tocorrect. ,   ׀TheChancellorsustainedtheobjectionstohertestimonyafterthefact,statingthat ItsobvioustotheCourtthewitnessshowedacompletelackofnecessaryknowledgetoqualifyherasanexpert.[She]hadnoreasonablebasisforheropinion.Asidefromthefactthatacarefulreadingofhertestimonytendstorevealseriousquestionsaboutherqualifications,itiswellsettledinthisstatethatatrialcourthaswidediscretioninthepremises,andwecannotsaythattheChancellorabusedhisdiscretionindisallowinghertestimony.Otisv.CambridgeMut.FireIns.Co.,850S.W.2d439(Tenn.1992).Moreover,thecredibilityofthiswitnesswasobviouslyapivotalissue.Harwell,supra. TheplaintiffsnextcomplainthattheChancellorappliedtheinappropriatemeasureofdamages,whichisallegedtobethecostofrepairsunlessasubstantialtearingdownandrebuildingofthestructureisindicated,inwhicheventthedamagesarethedifferencebetweenthevalueofthedefectivestructureandthatofthestructureproperlycompleted.Wethinkthepropermeasureofdamagesinthiscaseisthereasonablecostofrepairs.SeeEstateofJesseev.White,633S.W.2d767(Tenn.Ct.App.1987).ThisisthemeasureappliedbytheChancellor,whodetailedthefollowingdefectsasbeinginbreachofwarrantyandcapableofrepairforthecostsappearing:#` `  0*X# Porch(paintingandrepairstolights) 550.00 Vinylproblemsfortheporchandhouse 500.00 Basement(caulking,bracingstairanddoorrepairs) 50.00 Truss(cutwebrepairs) 75.00 Shutter 20.00 Backsteps 50.00 Frontdoor(paintandweatherstripping) 25.00 Backdoor(weatherstripping) 75.00 Latticework(paintandrepair) 200.00 Brickcolumnssupportingporch 200.00 Porchposts(repairandpaint) 120.00 Insiderepairs(sheetrock,secondfloorstairs 1,000.00 andbanister,trim,kitchencabinets,onestrike plate,caulkingandsealingelectricaloutlets, tubrepairsandpainting)  TOTALCOSTOFREPAIRS $2,865.00  `  X0*X  Wehavereviewedthetestimonyandcannotfindthattheevidencepreponderatesagainstthesefindings.Harwell,supra.Thejudgmentisaccordinglyaffirmedatthecostoftheappellants.      __________________________________      WilliamH.Inman,SeniorJudgeCONCUR:_____________________________̜W.FrankCrawford,PresidingJudge(W.S.)_____________________________D.RayFarmer,Judge%  ԛ