ÿWPCÇ …# VU:a %› 0(¡w@É4  , B4 v 0J~ 0TÈ 0^ 0hz 0râ 0|T 0†Ð 0V 1uæ U,[ 0d‡ U,ë U*B)A BjDC‡ AMÊáfø D3^v~‘vÓ 0@â AO"Æq 0D7 D/{ Bª˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ „… g†‡îˆU‰gŠ‹DŒÓ€–DÒ x3|x–C:\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)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d$$$$7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ×Ý ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌAugust€21,€1996ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó \Ñ\R AØ'\Ñ%%%%'ÿÿdxdPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€""X„d&ÓÑ#€""Xd#ÑÔ€#ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›œÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\Ñ›Ñ7€GÓXXdædÈ7Ñœ›à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLE€ÌÌÌNASHVILLE€PAINTING€CORP.,à àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellee,à àà àò ò)€€€Williamson€Chancery€No.€21816Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€'(&;+'h|6` Å `€€Lß›VS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€01A01„9510„CH„00491Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌRAY€BELL€CONSTRUCTION€CO.,à à)ÌINC.€and€INSURANCE€COMPANY€OFà à)ÌNORTH€AMERICA,à àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendants/Appellants.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€WILLIAMSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€FRANKLIN,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€HENRY€DENMARK€BELL,€CHANCELLORÌÌÌÌÌò òGREGORY€L.€CASHIONÌCAROL€R.€CONNORÌMANIER,€HEROD,€HOLLABAUGH€&€SMITHÌó óNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€AppellantsÌÌÌò òCHARLES€W.€SURASKYÌSMITH,€CURRIE€&€HANCOCKÌó óAtlanta,€GeorgiaÌò òDIANNA€BAKER€SHEWÌFARRIS,€WARFIELD€&€KANADAYÌó óNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€AppelleeÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌó óà àœÌÓÓà àThis›€suit€was€brought€by€a€œsubcontractor,€Nashville€Painting€Corporation›Ïœ(ð ðNPCðð),›€Ñ7€GÓXXdæXXdæ7Ñto€recover€for€œextra„contractual›€work€allegedly€performed€and€for€the€balanceÏdue€under€the€subcontract.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€appellantððs€counterclaim€forÏbreach€of€contract€and€awarded€$137,002.00€to€NPC.€€Appellant€has€raised€fourÏissues€on€appeal,€which€are:€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€NPC€hadÏcompleted€all€of€the€work€that€it€was€contractually€obligated€to€perform€by€June€1,Ï1992;€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€NPC€additional€compensation€forÏwork€performed€after€June€1,€1992;€(3)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissingÏappellantððs€counter„claim;€and€(4)€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€appellantÏhad€waived€the€written€change€order€provision€of€the€subcontract.€€After€a€carefulÏreview€of€the€record,€we€do€not€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trialÏcourtððs€findings€of€fact€in€this€matter,€and€we€therefore€affirm.ÌÌà àRay€Bell€Construction€Company€(ð ðBellðð)€entered€into€a€contract€with€the€GeorgiaÏBuilding€Authority€to€build€a€prison€in€Wilcox€County,€œGeorgia.€This›€contract,€whichÏobligated€Bell€to€construct€a€prison€for€$17,935,000.00,€€was€later€assumed€by€theÏGeorgia€State€Financing€and€Investment€Commission.€€The€Insurance€Company€ofÏNorth€America€served€as€surety€on€the€œcontract.›ÌÌà àIn€February€1990,€NPC€subcontracted€with€Bell€to€perform€painting€work€on€theÏproject.€œFollowing›€several€delays,€NPC€began€painting€during€the€first€week€of€May,Ï1991.€€œBy›€the€time€NPC€arrived€at€the€site€to€begin€painting,€the€project€was€œfraught›Ïwith€problems€and€delays.€€Inspectors€representing€the€owner€of€the€project€and€theÏstate€of€Georgia€had€condemned€much€of€the€work,€including€masonry€work,€concreteÏslabs€and€ceilings,€and€steel€frames.€€NPC€œpainted€according€to€the€paintingÏspecifications›€from€May€until€January€œ1991.›€ÌÌà àDue€to€numerous€condemnation€problems,€in€January€1992,€Bell€replaced€œthe›Ïjob€superintendent€with€Dennis€and€Joe€Howell.€€The€Howells€virtually€shut€down€theÏproject€for€two€to€three€weeks€in€order€to€correct€the€condemned€areas.€€During€thisÏtime,€a€great€deal€of€repair€work€was€performed€on€items€that€had€already€beenÏpainted€by€NPC.€€ÌÌà àIn€March€1992,€Dale€Shaver,€president€of€NPC,€orally€requested€that€BellÏcompensate€him€for€the€expenses€of€the€unnecessary€rework€caused€by€the€repairs.€ÏœKeith›€Pyle,€Bellððs€project€manager,€agreed€to€pay€NPC€an€additional€$19,800.00,Ïconditioned€upon€NPCððs€hiring€additional€painters€and€completing€all€of€the€work€byÏMay€29,€1992,€so€that€the€project€could€be€œinspected.€Bell›€subsequently€refused€to€payÏœNPC.The›€trial€court€awarded€$19,800.00€to€NPC€in€accordance€with€œthe€oral›Ïagreement,€and€Bell€has€œnot€contested›€this€aspect€of€œthe€trial€courtððs›€œjudgment›€onÏappeal.ÌÌà àOnce€NPC€resumed€work€on€the€project,€the€Howells€directed€NPC€as€to€howÏand€where€to€œpaint.€€Bill›€Gibson,€NPCððs€superintendent,€testified€that€on€manyÏoccasions,€Bellððs€representatives€ordered€them€to€paint€improperly€prepared€œsurfaces.Ï›Shaver€testified€that€NPC€employees€encountered€difficulty€in€performing€their€workÏbecause€the€areas€in€which€they€were€instructed€to€paint€were€often€inadequately€lit,Ïdirty,€and€œdamp.›€ÌÌà àIn€June€1992,€Bell€hired€Kenneth€Duncan,€Inc.€to€supplement€NPCððs€work€forceÏin€order€to€complete€the€painting€on€the€project.€œBell›€alleges€that€part€of€Duncanððs€workÏconsisted€of€painting€areas€that€were€NPCððs€contractual€œresponsibility.€€Bell›€does€notÏdispute,€however,€that€at€least€some€of€œDuncanððs€work›€was€œnot€encompassed€by›ÏNPCððs€œcontract.€›€In€June,€œBell€notified€Shaver€by›€letter€that€the€œexpenses€incurred€inÏhiring›€œDuncan€to›€œcomplete›€the€work€would€be€deducted€the€balance€of€NPCððsÏsubcontract.€ÌÌà àBetween€June€and€September,€NPC€remained€on€the€site€painting€punch„listÏitems.€€œNPC›€alleges€that€between€June€and€September,€it€was€primarily€repaintingÏwork€that€had€been€repaired€due€to€œothersðð€defective›€œworkmanship.€This›€testimony€isÏconsistent€with€one€of€Bellððs€witnesses,€who€stated€that€NPC€was€performing€work€onÏareas€that€œhad€either›€been€damaged,€or€for€some€other€reason€had€to€be€œrepainted.€›€ItÏis€NPCððs€position€that€it€œcompleted›€its€contractual€painting€obligations€on€or€about€JuneÏ1,€1992.€€NPC€submitted€a€claim€œfor€the›€extra€work€it€œhad€allegedly›€performed,€but€BellÏrefused€to€pay.€€Ñ€)ÑÇÌà àœIn€contrast,€Bell€contends€that€NPC€had€not€fulfilled€its€contractual€obligations€byÏthe€first€of€June,€and€that›€by€June€24,€1992,€there€remained€many€painting€items€thatÏwere€NPCððs€responsibility€that€had€not€been€œcompleted.›ÌÌà àNPC€filed€suit€against€Bell€œand€the€Insurance›€Company€of€North€America€inÏJanuary€1993,€œalleging›€that€it€was€entitled€to€the€balance€due€under€the€subcontractÏ($83,490.00)€and€additional€expenses€incurred€in€performing€extra„contractual€workÏfor€Bell.€€Bell€denied€that€NPC€was€entitled€to€any€amount,€and€counter„claimed€forÏbreach€of€œcontract.Ì›Ìà àAfter€hearing€the€testimony€of€several€witnesses€for€both€sides,€the€trial€courtÏruled€in€its€memorandum€œopinion€as›€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àIt€appears€that€it€was€BELLððs€policy€that€NPC€was€expectedÏto€paint€when€and€where€BELL€said€to€paint.€€It€alsoÏappears€that€contract€requirements€of€written€change€ordersÏwere€commonly€ignored€by€both€parties.€The€courtÏconcludes€that€the€testimony€of€NPCððs€witnesses€GibsonÏand€Shaver€is€essentially€credible€and€that€conflicts€in€theÏtestimony€should€be€resolved€generally€in€favor€of€NPC,Ïand€particularly€as€to€the€May,€1992€agreement€by€Bell€toÏpay€NPC€œ$16,800.00€[sic]›€for€extra€work€part€of€which€hadÏbeen€performed€by€NPC€prior€to€the€agreement€and€theÏremainder€of€which€was€performed€prior€to€June€1,€1992.€ÏThe€court€concludes€that€there€were€many€instances€ofÏdefective€painting€results€because€of€BELLððs€jobÏsuperintendentððs€administration€of€the€œð ðpaint›€when€andÏwhere€BELL€says€œpaintðð›€policy.€€This€policy€resulted€inÏpainting€on€damaged€and€insufficiently€prepared€surfacesÏand€painting€in€unclean,€insufficiently€lighted€and€dampÏareas.€€Nonetheless,€BELL€apparently€considered€theÏpainting€to€be€acceptable.€When€condemnations€wereÏissued€BELLððs€project€managers,€Peters€and€Pyle,€and€jobÏsuperintendent€Joe€œHowell€all›€told€NPC€œ(Shaver)€ð ðdonððt›Íworry€about€condemnations,€they€are€our€œproblem.ð𛀀TheÏcourt€concludes€that€BELL€by€his€conduct€waived€theÏcontract€requirement€of€written€change€orders€and€acceptedÏwork€performed€by€NPC€at€times€and€places€and€underÏconditions€controlled€by€BELL.€€The€court€concurs€in€NPCððsÏposition€that€correction€of€defective€painting€resultsÏaccepted€by€BELL€and€correction€of€œpaint„work›€damaged€byÏBELL€or€by€other€subcontractors€constitute€extra€contractualÏwork€for€which€NPC€is€entitled€to€compensation€on€aÏquantum€meruit€basis.€€The€Court€finds€and€concludes€thatÏthe€work€done€by€Ken€Duncanððs€painters€was€such€extraÏcontractual€work€not€included€in€the€May,€1992€agreement.Ìà8 àà8 àà àNPC€claims€compensation€of€$16,889.00€for€workÏdone€by€NPC€as€a€result€of€change€orders€issued€by€theÏowner€which€were€not€submitted€by€BELL€to€NPC€for€pricingÏof€painting€involved€in€the€change€orders.€€There€probablyÏwas€some€such€work€done€but€the€court€concludes€that€theÏamount€and€value€thereof€is€too€speculative€to€justify€anÏaward€in€any€amount.Ìà8 àà8 àà àThe€court€finds€and€concludes€that€NPC€is€entitled€toÏcompensation€as€claimed€of€$19,800.00€under€the€May,Ï1992€agreement€and€$37,548.00€for€extra€work€performedÏafter€June€1,€1992€and€the€balance€due€for€the€work€underÏthe€subcontract€in€the€amount€of€œ$79,654.00.›ÌÌÓÓÌà àBell€has€appealed€from€this€œdecree.€€Bell›€argues€œfirst€that›€the€evidenceÏpreponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€NPC€had€completed€all€of€itsÏcontractual€obligations€by€June€1,€œ1992.€€According€to€Bell,›€œtherefore,€NPC€was€not›Ïentitled€to€compensation€for€œany€work›€performed€from€June€until€September.ÌÌà àPursuant€to€œT.R.A.P.13(d),›€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€entitled€to€aÏpresumption€of€correctness,€unless€the€evidence€preponderates€otherwise.€€Moreover,Ïa€trial€courtððs€determination€as€to€the€credibility€of€witnesses€is€entitled€to€great€weightÏon€appeal.€€œIn€òòBowman›€v.€Bowmanóó,€836€S.W.2d€œ563›€(Tenn.€App.€œ1991),€the€courtÏexplained:›€€œ›ÓÓà8 àà8 àThe€reason€for€this€is€that€the€trial€judge€aloneÏhas€the€opportunity€to€observe€the€mannerÍand€demeanor€of€the€witness€while€testifying.€ÏIndeed,€the€trial€judge,€on€an€issue€whichÏhinges€on€witness€credibility,€will€not€beÏreversed€unless€there€is€found€in€the€recordÏconcrete€and€œconvincing€evidence,›€other€thanÏthe€oral€testimony€of€the€witnesses,€whichÏcontradicts€the€trial€courtððs€findings.ÌÌœòòId.óó€at€566.›ÌÌÌÌÓÓà àThe€primary€witnesses€in€this€case€were€Bill€Gibson,€job€superintendent€forÏNPC,€Dale€Shaver,€president€of€NPC,€Joe€Howell,€job€superintendent€for€Bell,€andÏKeith€Pyle,€project€manager€for€Bell.ÌÌà àShaver€testified€on€behalf€of€NPC€that€œits›€painting€was€complete€by€the€first€partÏof€June€1992,€and€that€all€painting€performed€between€June€and€September€wasÏextra„contractual€work.€€In€contrast,€Howell€and€Pyle€testified€that€from€June€untilÏSeptember,€NPCððs€painters€were€doing€contract€work.€ÌÌà àThe€trial€court€expressly€found€that€NPCððs€witnesses€were€essentially€credibleÏand€that€any€conflicts€in€testimony€should€be€resolved€in€favor€of€œNPC.›€The€trial€courtÏheld€that€NPC€was€entitled€to€$37,548.00€for€work€performed€between€June€andÏSeptember,€plus€the€balance€due€under€the€œsubcontract.›ÌÌà àBecause€the€trial€courtððs€findings€of€fact€are€entitled€to€a€presumption€ofÏcorrectness€and€because€those€findings€are€afforded€even€greater€weight€when€theyÏhinge€upon€the€credibility€of€witnesses,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€awardÏNPC€$37,548.00€for€work€performed€between€June€and€September.€€ÌÌà àBellððs€second€contention€on€appeal€is€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€dismissing€itsÏcounter„claim.€€Bell€alleged€in€its€counter„claim€that€NPC€breached€its€subcontract€byÏfailing€to€perform€its€work€adequately€and€in€accordance€with€the€paintingÏspecifications.€€Consequently,€Bell€alleges,€it€is€entitled€to€recover€from€NPC€theÏamount€that€it€paid€to€Duncan.ÌÌà àWe€do€not€find€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€findingÏthat€much€of€the€allegedly€defective€painting€work€arose€from€Bellððs€practice€of€tellingÏNPC€when€and€where€to€paint.€œMany›€times,€NPC€was€instructed€to€paint€overÏinadequately€prepared€surfaces.€€œIn›€addition,€there€is€ample€evidence€in€the€record€toÏsupport€the€conclusion€that€much€of€the€work€on€this€project€was€sloppy€andÏunworkmanlike.€€œThese›€defects€in€construction€resulted€in€NPCððs€having€to€œpaint€items›Ïthat€NPC€œhad€previously›€painted.€ÌÌà àFor€these€reasons,€we€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€Bellððs€counter„claimÏœand€its›€determination€that€NPC€did€not€breach€the€terms€of€the€subcontract.ÌÌà àFinally,€Bell€argues€that€NPC€is€not€entitled€to€recover€for€any€œadditional›€œworkÏbecause›€NPC€did€not€comply€with€the€subcontractððs€requirement€of€obtaining€a€writtenÏchange€œorder.€The›€subcontract€between€NPC€and€Bell€contains€a€written€change€orderÏœclause,›€œwhich€states:›ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àArticle€XIII€„€Should€alterations€or€actual€work€be€hereunderÏrequired...no€changes€are€to€be€made,€however,€exceptÏupon€a€written€change€order€from€contractor€before€the€workÍis€commenced,€and€contractor€shall€not€be€held€liable€toÏsubcontractor€for€any€extra€labor,€materials,€or€equipmentÏfurnished€without€such€written€order.ÌÓÓÌà àœBellððs€argument›€must€fail€for€the€simple€reason€that€the€work€performed€betweenÏJune€and€September€was,€as€we€have€found,€extra„contractual€œwork.›€Consequently,Ïthe€contract€provision€requiring€written€change€orders€is€œinapplicable€because€theÏwork€performed€fell€outside€the€subject€matter€of€the€written€subcontract.›€€The€trial€courtÏbased€the€theory€of€recovery€on€quantum€meruit,€which€requires€payment€by€a€partyÏthat€receives€a€benefit€under€circumstances€where€it€would€be€inequitable€for€him€toÏretain€the€benefit€without€paying€compensation.€€òòJaffe€v.€Boltonóó,€817€S.W.2d€19,€26Ï(Tenn.€App.€1991).€€We€œhold€that›€this€was€œa€proper›€basis€upon€which€to€afford€œrelief€toÏNPC.›Ìà àÓÓà àÓÓÌà àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€trial€court.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxedÏto€œappellants.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àóóHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌCRAWFORD,€P.J.,€W.S.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.›