ÿWPCv  P½ãÃl“=ž fTáyŸ!Äóˆ Yõšú)¾©¸Dnó5wוNóÞKWµ(þåþ8ƒ Ü£e¾xš×wþ]ÈéV+y^ð›ÀjTˆÈÜ®­^Ž ã:éÔ{¦2Þ#Š¡ÓFÚ…Pz@¼Á(ë‹'à:Q¾œG Sα[KI§ÒGóÛýÑž;ðÚLé(ÒoøŒÉrméÖr9²æ—‚Ño†"\0Á/”e5¬å‡¿†™ G¸€ô$/¾g¿©C $UN·nR—Û™Í#‰›? €¬fÞYn‚ä(ûÚd¡©¹ß%¢3’Ÿ8§ ﺧ2‡ƒ.¶ O¾Qó]Ò[ÝnéöÒnj(=„íìÏ-µ0s“8ý®sDN󺂦”„: Õm·0y0˜K±–¤Ù(Ž­a&Œ»é-÷§ÜŸÑÑO¨1B‚e¦º­aªfeíß^ Mtä»*¦ãÑ}=*¸k…›È ßj9:u±§6®öé°Œ@z#–Iî.z’j.·åÖ%˜*# LUNW %¥ 0(«w@Ó4'UN6„-Œ¹U:½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½½ AQ÷ÆH 0D 0DR 0D– – D/Ú B B& D3C ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡ ¸À¹ºD»¼½D¾¿DÀӀʩyË&,,,,,,3|xÊ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular #Ñ#€Xÿÿd#Ñ úÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€ X{XXXÔÔ€ $Y X X{ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ X{X  $YÔÐ  ÐÌAugust€20,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxd düÿP Pd'''''ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÒ¼°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€¼lU¼XXÔÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓ-¼äd†XœÔ‘X°œX-ÓÑ  ÑÑ€ úÑñÊññÀñßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` 8ttxP,°ð  rßñÀññÊññÊññÊñGREETER›€CONSTRUCTIONà t àà  à)Ð ° ÐñÊñœßt€ )>.*jx½2` `€€@E±ò` 8ttxPéÀà 2 tß›ñÊñCOMPANY,à Ä àà  àà t àà  à)Ð À Ðà  àà l àà Ä àà  àà t àà  à)ÌÓ?¼8d‚X,X¼äd†XœÔ‘X?Óà  àPlaintiff/Appellant,à  à)à  àAppeal€No.Ð à0 Ðà  àà  à)à  à01„A„01„9808„CH„00427Ð ð@ Ðv.à  àà  à)à  àà  àÐ  P Ðà  àà  à)à  àDavidson€ChanceryÐ  ` ÐRICHARD€A.€TICE€andà  à)à  àNo.€95„1287„IIIÐ  p ÐNANCY€TICE,à  à)Ð 0 € Ðà  àà  à)Ìà  àDefendants/Appellees.à  à)Ð P   ÐÌÌÓ  ÓCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌÌÌAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€œCLAUDIA€BONNYMAN,€SPECIAL€CHANCELLOR›ÌÓ  ÓÌÌÌÌÌœWILLIAM€L.€ABERNATHY,€JR.ÌLeitner,€Williams,€CooleyÌ€€and€NapolitanÌ2300€First€American€CenterÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37238„2300Ìà  àATTORNEY€FOR€PLAINTIFF/APPELLANTÌÌÌÌÌPETER€H.€CURRYÌTuke€Yopp€&€SweeneyÌNationsBank€Plaza,€Suite€1100Ì414€Union€StreetÌNashville,€Tennessee€€37219Ìà  àATTORNEY€FOR€DEFENDANTS/APPELLEESÌ›ÌÌÌÌœÓ  ÓAFFIRMED€AND€REMANDED›ÌÌÌÌñÀñÑ úÑÑ7€FXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ#€Xÿÿd#ÑÑ  ÑñÀñÌÓ  ÓWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ à:0639 ÐÑ úÑÑ7€FXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑñÀñÑ úÑÑ7€ö$XXdìdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑñÀñÓ  ÓÔ€„ËÑ„¼¼lUÔòòO€P€I€N€I€O€NóóÐ ° ÐÓ€ÓÓ  ÓÌÔ‡„õ´„„„ËÑÔÔ‡¼ÎÁ¼„„õ´Ôà  àThis€appeal€represents€a€consolidated€case€commenced€by€Appellant,Ð  p ÐGreeter€Construction€Company€(hereafter€Greeter)€against€the€AppelleesÏRichard€and€Nancy€Tice.€€Greeter€had€sued€the€Tices€for€an€amount€allegedlyÏowed€under€a€construction€contract.€€The€Tices€counterclaimed€for€breach€ofÏsaid€contract.ÌÌà  àThe€Tices€contracted€with€Greeter€for€the€renovation€of€their€BrookÏHollow€Drive€home.€€The€primary€portion€of€this€renovation€was€an€1100€squareÏfoot€addition€to€the€house.€The€construction€contract€reads€in€pertinent€part€asÏfollows:ÌÓ€ÓÓ  Ó*€*€*€ÌÓj ÓÓ€X ÓÓ€Óà8  àAll€work€is€to€be€performed€in€a€professional€workmanlike€manner,Ïfree€from€all€liens€or€claims€of€mechanics€or€materialmen,€subjectÏto€the€stipulations€and€other€provisions€on€the€additional€attachedÏdocuments:Ð  ü! ü! ÐÌà8  àòòò òð ðEstimate€&€Project€Outlineðð€and€ð ðStipulationsðð.óóó óÐî> ü! ü! ÐÓ  ÓÌÓÓà8  àIn€case€of€conflict€between€the€plans€and€specs€the€plans€shallÏcontrol€over€the€specifications€and€the€provisions€of€this€contractÏshall€control€both.Ð  ü! ü! ÐÌà8  àðð€The€work€to€be€performed€by€[Greeter]€to€the€Agreement€andÐ r% # Ðshall€be€substantially€commenced€approximately€on€ò òòòAugust€ò ò10ó ó,Ð ˆ&Ø!$ Ð17,€1994óóó ó€and€shall€be€substantially€completed€on€òòò òNovember€ò ò7,ó ó€8,Ð ž'î"% Ð1994.ó óóóд($& ü! ü! ÐÌà8  àðð€[TICES]€promise[]€to€pay€or€cause€to€be€paid€to€[Greeter]€inÐ à*0&( Ðconsideration€for€his€performance€ò òall€costs€for€material€and€laborÐ ö+F') Ðplus€15%ó ó€payable€as€follows:€òòNot€to€exceed€total€estimate€ofÐ  -\(* ÐConstruction€project€of€$49,750.00€unless€agreed€upon€byÏð ðowner.ðð€œà  àà  àà  àà , à/s/›€JAG€Ð 8/ˆ*, Мà  àà  àà  àà , à›€€/s/€NTÐ  ü! ü! ÐÓ€£ ÓÌóóà  àThis€agreement,€complete€with€handwritten€and€initialized€addenda€andÐ 3U.0 Ðalteration,€was€entered€into€by€the€parties€on€August€14,€1994.€€From€this€pointÏon,€the€Owners€Tice€and€Greeter€enjoyed€what€the€record€reveals€to€be€at€bestÏa€problematic€relationship.€€Despite€Nancy€Ticeððs€frequent€presence€on€the€œjobÏ›site€and€extensive€correspondence€between€the€Tices€and€Greeter,€the€renovationÐ ‰9Ù48 Ðproject€experienced€significant€delay€and€cost€inflation.€In€addition€to€unexpectedÏcost€increases€and€labor€delays,€three€different€rains,€occurring€in€SeptemberÏOctober€and€November€of€1994€caused€extensive€damage€to€the€original€structureÐ 9^49 Ðas€well€as€to€the€addition.€€Without€any€specific€prior€notice,€the€Tices€terminatedÏGreeter€Construction€on€December€5,€1994.€€ÌÌà  àOn€April€24,€1995,€Greeter€filed€a€complaint€in€€the€Davidson€CountyÏChancery€Court€to€enforce€a€materialmanððs€lien€in€the€amount€of€$12,000Ïallegedly€due€on€the€contract.€€The€Tices€responded€and€counterclaimed€forÏbreach,€alleging€the€following:ÌÓ  Ó*€*€*€ÌÓøÓÓ€Óà8  à1.€[Greeter]€breached€the€contract€between€the€parties€by:Ð  ü! ü! ÐÓB¼8d‚X z ,X¼8d‚X,XBÓà8  àœà  àa.€€à z àFailing€to€construct€the€improvements€in€accordance€à „! àÐ €Ð  Ðwith€the€plans€and€specifications.Ð  ü! ü! Ðà8  àà  àb.€€à8z  ü! ü!àFailing€to€construct€the€improvements€within€theÐ  ð Ðbudget€estimate.Ð z … z …  Ðà8  à›à  àc.€à z àFailing€to€construct€the€improvements€in€a€professionalÐ À Ðworkmanlike€manner.Ð  ü! ü! ÐÓ?¼8d‚X z ,X¼8d‚X z ,X?Óà8  àà8  ü! ü!àd.à8z   àFailing€to€complete€the€improvements€in€aÐ à0 Ðtimely€manner.Ð z –z – Ðà8  àà  àe.à z àFailing€to€obtain€authorization€from€Defendants€beforeÐ P Ðordering€material,€the€cost€of€which€exceeded€the€agreed€to€estimate.Ð  ü! ü! Ðà8  à2.à  àAs€a€result€of€[Greeter]ððs€breach€of€the€contract,€DefendantsÐ  p Ðhave€suffered€damages€in€the€amount€of€approximately€$52,500,€theÏexact€amount€to€be€determined€at€trial.Ð  ü! ü! ÐÌà  àÌÓ€Óà  àThe€case€was€tried€without€a€jury€before€Hon.€Claudia€Bonnyman,€SpecialÏChancellor,€on€April€6,€1998.€€The€Chancellorððs€memorandum€discloses€theÏfollowing€findings€of€fact€which€are€entitled€to€a€presumption€of€correctness€onÏappeal€œabsenñ½ñcñ½ññ¾ñtñ¾ññ¿ñeñ¿ñ›€a€showing€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€those€findings.€ÏTenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d).ÌÌÓ€Óà8  àà  àWork€on€the€project€began€in€August€of€1994.€€Even€the€firstÏstage,€demolition,€took€longer€than€Alan€Greeter€anticipated.€HeÏasserts€that€the€Owners€made€changes€in€the€project€which€causedÏdelay.€€However,€Greeter€did€not€provide€written€change€orders€toÏsupport€that€position.€€By€the€end€of€September,€Alan€GreeterÏadmitted€to€the€Owners€that€the€cost€overrun€for€the€first€stage€wasÏalready€10„15%.€€He€advised€the€Owners€that€the€contract€price€wasÏstill€valid,€however,€because€there€were€cost€savings€to€be€had€laterÏin€the€project.€€In€fact,€the€cost€overruns€continued.€€At€trial€he€didÏnot€know€what€the€revised€cost€would€be€if€he€had€completed€theÏproject.€€The€Owners€paid€Greeter€almost€twenty€thousandÏ($20,000)€dollars€(including€the€deposit)€by€the€time€of€terminationÏin€early€December.Ð  ü! ü! Ðà8  àà  àThe€project€had€numerous€problems.€€First,€the€Owners€provedÐ Ð9 59 Ðthat€Alan€Greeter€was€inexperienced€and€had€previous€large€costÏoverruns€on€one€of€the€few€projects€he€had€supervised€before€theÏOwnerððs€project.€€It€became€obvious€to€the€Owners€that€this€projectÏcould€not€be€completed€for€any€amount€near€the€contract€price.€ÏSecond,€after€the€work€began,€Alan€Greeter€concluded€that€theÏdesign€for€the€back€of€the€house€was€not€possible€for€him€to€follow.€ÏThis€was€disappointing€for€the€Owners€but€they€accepted€suchÏdeviations€for€a€few€months.€€Third,€the€renovations€design€requiredÏremoval€of€an€exterior€wall€and€a€new€roof€for€the€addition€whichÏwould€tie€into€the€old€roof.€€It€was€expected€that€for€a€brief€period,Ïthe€inside€of€the€house€would€be€exposed€to€weather.€€Alan€GreeterÏadmitted€that€Greeter€had€a€duty€to€protect€the€house€from€rain€toÏthe€extent€that€could€be€done.€€The€Owners€proved€that€GreeterÏfailed€to€take€precautions€to€protect€the€interior€of€the€house€duringÏrains€in€October€and€November.€€The€last€rain€resulted€in€majorÏwater€damage€to€the€interior€costing€the€Owners€$26,078.19€toÏrepair.€...Ð  ü! ü! Ðà8  àà  àOn€December€5,€1994,€the€Owners€terminated€the€project€withÏGreeter€because€of€the€problems€discussed€above.€€Builderððs€GroupÏcompleted€the€project,€(reworking€much€of€the€Greeter€construction)Ïpursuant€to€the€original€plans.€...€Greeter€was€aware€that€delay€andÏcost€problems€can€and€do€arise.€Ð  ü! ü! ÐÌÓ€Óà  àFrom€the€order€below€Greeter€appeals€asserting€as€its€issue€ð ð[w]hether€theÏTices€are€entitled€to€damages€after€unilaterally€terminating€the€building€contractÏwith€Greeter€Construction€Company.ððÌÌThe€Special€Chancellor€concluded€regarding€the€liability€of€the€parties:ÌÓ€Óà8  àà  àThe€construction€agreement€Greeter€Drafted,€however,€did€notÏprovide€for€cost€contingencies.€€Although€the€contract€wasÏcaptioned€a€ð ðcost€plusðð€contract,€the€œagreement€was€amended€toÏestablish€a€set€building€cost€which€could€only€be€changed€byÏagreement.›€€The€Owners€did€not€agree€to€increase€the€contract€priceÏof€$49,750.€...Ð  ü! ü! ÐÓ  Ó*€*€*€ÌÓ(Óà8  àà  àThe€Owners€are€awarded€a€judgment€against€GreeterÏConstruction€Company€in€the€amount€of€sixty€three€thousand,€fourÏhundred€thirty„three€($63,433.00)€dollars.Ð  ü! ü! ÐÌÓ€ÓÌSo€much€of€this€case€depends€on€an€appraisal€of€the€credibility€of€Allen€GreeterÏas€opposed€to€the€credibility€of€Richard€and€Nancy€Tice.€€On€appeal,€we€areÏbound€by€the€same€rules€as€were€articulated€in€òòWeaver€v.€Nelmsóó,€œ750›€S.W.2d€œ158›Ð 5à02 Ð(Tenn.€App.€1987).ÌÓ€Óà8  àIn€this€nonjury€case,€the€trial€judge,€as€the€trier€of€fact,€had€theÏopportunity€to€observe€the€witnesses,€Nelms,€his€daughter€NancyÐ Ð9 57 ÐWilson,€and€her€husband,€Bill€Wilson,€as€they€testified€from€theÏwitness€stand€concerning€the€transaction.€€The€weight,€faith€andÏcredit€to€be€given€to€any€witness'€testimony€lies€in€the€first€instanceÏwith€the€trier€of€fact€who€has€the€opportunity€to€observe€the€mannerÏand€demeanor€of€the€witnesses€as€they€testify.€€The€credibilityÏaccorded€by€the€trier€of€fact€will€be€given€great€weight€by€theÏappellate€court.€€òòSee€Town€of€Alamo€v.€Forcum„James€Co.,óó€205Ð  ` ÐTenn.€478,€327€S.W.2d€47€(1959);€òòSisk€v.€Valley€Forge€InsuranceÐ  p ÐCo.óó,€640€S.W.2d€844€(Tenn.€App.€1982).€€Ð0 € ü! ü! ÐÌ750€S.W.2d€158,€160€(Tenn.€App.€1987).ÌÌÓ€ÓÌà  àThe€contract€provided€that€all€of€the€work€was€to€be€preformed€by€GreeterÏ"...€in€a€professional€workmanlike€manner€..."€and€to€be€completed€by€NovemberÏ8,€1994.€€The€total€cost€of€the€project€was€not€to€exceed€$49,750.00€unless€agreedÏto€by€the€owners.ÌÌà  àEarly€into€the€work€performance€it€became€apparent€that€significant€costÏoverruns€were€inevitable.€€The€trial€court€held€that€Allen€Greeter€was€anÏinexperienced€contractor€and€in€the€few€projects€he€had€supervised€previously,Ïlarge€cost€overruns€were€experienced.€€His€father,€John€W.€Greeter,€was€theÏfounder€and€real€owner€of€Greeter€Construction€Company€but€took€little€part€inÏthe€Tice€job€and€provided€practically€no€oversight€of€the€job.€€In€order€toÏconstruct€the€addition€to€the€existing€home€it€was€necessary€to€remove€one€entireÏexterior€wall,€thus€exposing€the€house€to€the€elements.€€Three€times€the€house€wasÏdamaged€by€rainfall.€€On€September€23,€1994,€the€existing€kitchen€in€the€houseÏfell€in€due€to€rain€damage.€€No€precautions€had€been€taken€to€protect€againstÏdamage€from€rain.€€A€similar€incident€occurred€in€the€first€part€of€October€butÏwith€less€damage.€€During€the€weekend€of€November€26,€1994,€three€weeks€afterÏthe€contract€was€to€have€been€finished,€very€heavy€rainfall€inundated€the€houseÏwith€water€resulting€in€massive€internal€destruction,€requiring€œextensive›Ïreconstruction€by€contractors€employed€by€the€insurance€companies€of€bothÏGreeter€and€Tice.€€Mrs.€Tice€testified€that€weather€forecast€prior€to€November€26,Ïhad€indicated€rain€and€that€she€and€Mr.€Tice€had€gone€visiting€elsewhere€for€theÏThanksgiving€holidays.€€Upon€their€return€they€found€the€extensive€water€damageÏto€the€house€and€it€appeared€that€no€pre„rain€precautions€had€been€taken€by€theÏcontractor€to€protect€the€exposed€œinterior€of€the€home.Ð H9˜4> Л‡à  àIn€spite€of€the€delay€in€completing€the€work€under€the€contract,€GreeterÏpreformed€practically€no€work€on€the€house€during€the€month€of€November€1994.€ÏWhile€all€of€the€delay€was€not€caused€by€Greeter,€the€trial€court€held€that€theÏproblems€with€delay,€failure€to€protect€the€job€from€rainwaters,€cost€overruns€andÏinferior€workmanship,€breached€the€contract€and€justified€Mr.€and€Mrs.€Tice€inÏterminating€the€building€contract€with€Greeter€Construction€Company.€€TheÏevidence€certainly€does€not€preponderate€against€these€conclusions€of€the€trialÏjudge.Ì€€Ìà  àAppellant€argues€that,€despite€its€inability€to€keep€within€the€price€it€setÏwith€the€Tices,€Greeter€was€entitled€to€notice€of€dissatisfaction€on€the€part€of€theÏTices€before€the€termination€of€the€contract€on€December€5.€€Appellant€arguesÏthat,€absent€that€notice,€the€Tices€termination€amounts€to€ð ðthe€first€materialÏbreachðð€to€the€construction€contract€of€August€17,€1994.€€As€œthis›€court€hasÏpreviously€stated,€ð ð[r]equiring€notice€is€a€sound€rule€designed€to€allow€theÏdefaulting€party€to€repair€the€defective€work,€to€reduce€the€damages,€to€avoidÏadditional€defective€performance,€and€to€promote€the€informal€settlement€ofÏdisputes.ðð€òòMcClain€v.€Kimbrough€Const.€Co.,€Inc.óó€806€S.W.2d€194,€198€(Tenn.Ð È" ÐCt.€App.€1990)€€€òòciting€Pollard€v.€Saxe€&€Yolkes€Dev.€Co.,€óó12€Cal.3d€374,€525Ð `!°$ ÐP.2d€88,€92,€115€Cal.€Rptr.€648,€652€(1974);€òòSturdy€Concrete€Corp.€v.€NabÐ ø"H& ÐConstr.€Corp.,€óó65€A.D.2d€262,€411€N.Y.S.2d€637,€644€(1978).€€However€it€isÐ $à( Ðequally€true€that,€ð ð[n]otice€ought€to€be€given€when€information€material€to€theÏperformance€of€a€contract€is€within€the€peculiar€knowledge€of€òòonlyóó€one€of€theÐ À'#, Ðcontracting€parties.ðð€€òòMcClain,óó€806€S.W.2d€at€198,€òòemphasis€added.óó€€The€rainÐ X)¨$. Ðdamage€resulting€from€the€absent€exterior€wall€and€missing€œtarps›,€the€increasedÏcosts€far€outstripping€the€estimated€costs,€the€delay€in€beginning€the€constructionÏcontract,€all€were€well€within€the€knowledge€of€both€contractor€and€owner.€€EvenÏif€one€were€to€find€to€the€contrary,€the€writings€between€the€parties€appearing€ofÏrecord€evidence€notice€to€Greeter€of€the€œTice›ððs€dissatisfaction€with€at€least€theÏcost€overruns.€€Thus€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€finding€of€Greeterððs€inability€andÏdisinclination€to€perform€under€the€contract.€€This€inability€operated€as€anÏuncured€material€breach€which€excused€the€notice€requirement€discussed€inÏœòòMcClainóó,›€806€S.W.2d€at€199.€€Ð °73@ ÐÐ H9˜4B Ðà  àNo€issue€is€made€on€appeal€as€to€the€amount€of€damages€awarded€to€Mr.Ïand€Mrs.€Tice€for€breach€of€contract€and€our€review€of€the€record€indicates€thatÏthe€evidence€as€to€damages€does€not€preponderate€against€the€findings€of€the€trialÏcourt.ÌÌà  àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€in€all€respects€affirmed€and€costs€areÏtaxed€against€Appellant€Greeter€Construction€Company.€Ìà8  àÐ  ü! ü! ÐÔ#†¼k¼¼¼k^#ÔÔ#†„;Ý„¼¼k}#ÔœÌÓ€ÓÓ?¼8d‚X z „!X¼8d‚X z ,X?Óà  àà  àà z àà  à______________________________Ìà  àà  àà z àà  àñ·ññ¶ñWñ¶ññ·ññ¸ñÔ€¼k¼„„;ÝÔñ¸ññ¹ñWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÐ à0 ÐÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌBEN€H.€ñ¹ññºññ¹ñDñ¹ññºññ»ñCñ»ññ¹ñANñ¹ññ¼ñTRELL,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEñ¼ñ