ÿWPCî !©œ4h*Q •õcÕÈ7X¹[ —õ~’5h@|ÏÔ°Nú ?±ÚjoÑÊKý–ç|¤6A½^s¸z…S†s+òušÈBóÝbP*ðcÑ£>I·R¥•+Z=âÐOõ@+c©(ðaôá.”Ðʤfø µ“¦‚:ä5šžûjp'ÅgêróÛ™ Æ× Æ ÆcÆ)UNïN=T? 0D“E×ÐÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙÙb©©©©©©©©©©©©©©© 0:±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±±± 0ëëëëë BÖÖ 0¤ó D3— D-Ê 0K÷÷ ASBÆ• 0¤[ 0Dÿ A«C˜\\IB01S01\CLERK1NASÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»‡ž„/Ï (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regularqdj/ê:i¢Ø+00 ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀô\  `‹&Times New RomanLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÖÃ9 Z‹6Times New Roman Regular JÝ ƒR#ß$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôã ò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€factual€situation€of€this€case€is€more€involved€than€we€discuss€in€this€Opinion.€€For€purposes€of€simplicity,Ð ° Ðwe€discuss€only€the€facts€directly€relevant€to€the€issues€on€appeal.€€(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  RCR COA a]nySwineyGoddard P.J.CashionWelbornsubgradecompactableEzellgeotechnicalRickyb]ecauseBassetts]everal t]o t]heLoudonGreenstonemeruitestoppedHowmet SysGT- ù-4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó(|G2#ß$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Sa»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôã ò»»Ô d(|3IZ$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Sa»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV'ÿÿdxd)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3IZ$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Sa»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€Sa»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼Sa»»»ÔÑ8€eXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îZ¨î»¼SaÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼Sa»îîZ¨#ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAugust€5,€2003€SessionÐ üL ÐÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔÌÌò òÔ#†¼Sa»XXe#ÔAMERICAN€EXCAVATORS,€LLCòòóó€v.€RCR€BUILDING€Ð æ 6 ÐCORPORATION,€òòet€alóó.Ô‡XeX»¼SaÔó óÐ ú J ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Williamson€CountyÐ ú J Ðà@@øøìàNo.€27213€€€€€€R.E.€Lee€Davies,€ChancellorÐ æ 6  ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<©` AßÐ ªú  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2002„01757„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€December€4,€Ô_Ô2003Ô_ÔÐ ¥õ  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<|` AßÐ }Í Ðó óÓ  ÓÌÌAmerican€Excavators,€LLC€(ð ðPlaintiffðð)€entered€into€a€subcontract€agreement€with€RCR€BuildingÐ d´ ÐCorporation€(ð ðDefendantðð)€which€required€Plaintiff€to€perform€excavation€and€utilities€work€for€the€Ð P  ÐWilliamson€County€community€services€buildingÔ#†¼Sa»XXe§#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔ.׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€subcontract€agreement€provided€€for€certainÐ <Œ Ðexcavation€work€to€be€done€for€a€lump€sum€and€states€that€ð ð[a]ny€additional€undercutting€andÐ (x Ðrefilling€of€areas€due€to€unsuitable€soils€will€be€done€for€a€unit€price€of€$12.50€per€cubic€yard.ðð€Ð d ÐÔ#†¼Sa»XXeA#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔPlaintiff€claims€that€while€performing€the€work,€it€encountered€a€large€amount€of€unsuitable€soil€thatÐ P Ðit€removed€and€replaced.€€Plaintiff€later€submitted€change€orders€to€Defendant€requesting€to€be€paidÐ ì< Ðfor€the€removal€of€the€alleged€unsuitable€soil.€€Defendant€paid€a€portion€of€the€change€orders,€butÐ Ø( Ðrefused€to€pay€the€entire€amount.€€Plaintiff€sued€for€breach€of€contract.€€After€a€bench€trial,€the€TrialÐ Ä ÐCourt€dismissed€Plaintiffððs€claims€against€Defendant.€€Plaintiff€appeals.€€We€affirm.Ð ° ÐÓìÓÌÌò òTenn.€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€Court€Affirmed;€Ð t Ä ÐCase€Remanded.ó óÐ `!°  ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼Sa»àXe #ÔÔ‡XeX.¼SaÔD.€Michael€Swiney,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.,óóÐ $$t# Ðand€òòHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.óó,€joined.Ð %` $ ÐÌTodd€E.€Panther,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellant,€American€Excavators,€LLC.Ð è&8"& ÐÌGregory€L.€Cashion€and€S.€Joseph€Welborn,€Nashville,€Tennessee,€for€the€Appellee,€RCR€BuildingÐ À($( ÐCorporation.Ð ¬)ü$) ÐÓ( ÓÐ ˜*è%*ý ÐÔ_Ôò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼Sa»XXeW #ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔÐ ° ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼Sa»XXe– #ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔÓÓò òòòBackgroundóóó óÐ ˆØ ÐÓ  ÓÓÓà  àà ` àDefendant€contracted€with€the€owner,€Williamson€County€(ð ðCountyðð),€to€constructÐ `° Ðthe€Williamson€County€community€services€buildingÔ#†¼Sa»XXeô #ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔ€Ô#†¼Sa»XXeD#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔ(ð ðProjectðð).€€Defendant€then€solicitedÐ L œ Ðsubcontract€bids€for€portions€of€the€work.€€Ð 8 ˆ ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€submitted€a€subcontract€bid€proposing€to€install€the€utilities€such€as€waterÐ  ` Ðand€sewer€and€perform€site€work€for€the€Project.€€Plaintiffððs€contractual€responsibilities€on€the€jobÐ ü L  Ðwere€to€include€excavating€the€site€to€subgrade,€which€is€the€elevation€necessary€for€construction.€Ð è 8  ÐIn€order€to€reach€subgrade,€the€topsoil€would€be€stripped€and€then€portions€of€land€with€a€naturalÐ Ô$  Ðgrade€above€subgrade€level€would€be€removed.€€This€process€is€known€as€cutting.€€The€portions€ofÐ À  Ðthe€property€below€subgrade€level€would€need€to€be€filled€appropriately.€€If€the€soils€below€subgradeÐ ¬ü  Ðwere€unsuitable€to€build€upon,€those€areas€would€need€to€be€undercut€and€filled€with€suitable€soil.€Ð ˜è  ÐBasically,€unsuitable€soil€is€soil€that€is€not€sufficiently€compactable.€€€€Ô#†¼Sa»XXe‡#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaԀР„Ô  ÐÔ#†¼Sa»XXeð#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔÌà  àà ` àIn€preparing€Plaintiffððs€bid,€Harley€Ezell,€Plaintiffððs€estimator€and€project€manager,Ð \¬ Ðreferred€to€a€soils€report€prepared€for€the€County€by€a€geotechnical€engineer,€Goodrich€Testing€&Ð H˜ ÐEngineering,€Inc.€(ð ðGT&Eðð).€€Ô#†¼Sa»XXeH#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔThe€soils€report€showed€that€the€material€in€the€cut€section€would€beÐ 4„ Ðsuitable€for€use€as€fill.€€This€meant€that€Plaintiff€could€move€the€material€from€the€cut€area€to€the€fillÐ  p Ðarea€and€less€material€would€need€to€be€imported€onto€the€site€for€fill.€€Ô#†¼Sa»XXe­#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔThe€soils€report€indicated€thatÐ  \ Ðthere€were€two€areas,€the€garden€area€and€the€gymnasium€area,€with€potentially€adverse€soilÐ øH Ðconditions.€€However,€the€report€indicated€that€the€remainder€of€the€material€on€site€was€suitable€forÐ ä4 Ðbuilding.€€Ô#†¼Sa»XXe#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔThe€contract€between€Defendant€and€the€County€states€that€the€soils€report€was€providedÐ Ð  Ðfor€informational€purposes€only.€Ô#†¼Sa»XXe~#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔ€Ô#†¼Sa»XXeM#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔPlaintiff€prepared€its€bid€estimating€that€approximately€six€inchesÐ ¼  Ðof€topsoil€would€be€stripped€from€the€site.€€Ô#†¼Sa»XXe#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔThe€county€provided€fill€at€no€cost€for€the€Project.€€€€Ô#†¼Sa»XXeW#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔÐ ¨ø ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiffððs€bid€was€accepted€and€Plaintiff€and€Defendant€entered€into€a€subcontractÐ €Ð Ðagreement.€€The€subcontract€agreement€between€Plaintiff€and€Defendant€provides€that€ð ð[a]nyÐ l¼ Ðadditional€undercutting€and€refilling€of€areas€due€to€unsuitable€soils€will€be€done€for€a€unit€price€ofÐ X ¨ Ð$12.50€per€cubic€yard.ðð€€Ô#†¼Sa»XXeÑ#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔPlaintiff€claims€that€the€$12.50€per€yard€provision€applies€to€unsuitableÐ D!” Ðmaterial€both€below€subgrade€and€above€subgrade.€€However,€Mr.€Ezell€admits€that€neither€theÐ 0"€  Ðcounty,€nor€the€architect,€ever€told€Mr.€Ezell€that€Plaintiff€would€be€paid€for€unsuitable€materialsÐ #l! Ðabove€subgrade.€€Ô#†¼Sa»XXe¶#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔThe€subcontract€agreement€also€provides€ð ðIf€there€shall€be€any€inconsistencyÐ $X" Ðbetween€any€provision€of€the€Contract€Documents€between€the€OWNER€and€the€CONTRACTORÐ ô$D # Ðand€this€Subcontract€Agreement,€then€this€Subcontract€Agreement€shall€govern.ðð€€€Ð à%0!$ ÐÔ#†¼Sa»XXeQ#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔà  àà ` àÔ#†¼Sa»XXeÉ#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔÌà  àà ` àOnce€work€on€the€project€began,€several€problems€were€encountered.€€The€survey€didÐ ¸'#& Ðnot€match€the€plans€and€one€of€the€four€boundaries€appeared€to€be€off.€€As€a€result,€Plaintiff€had€toÐ ¤(ô#' Ðð ðremove€some€additional€trees,€refrigerators,€car€bumpers€and€stuff€like€that.€.€.€.ðð€€A€problem€wasÐ )à$( Ðalso€encountered€when€some€concrete€pipe€with€a€diameter€of€18€or€24€inches€was€discovered€in€theÐ |*Ì%) Ðground€running€through€the€entire€length€of€the€property.€€Plaintiff€had€to€excavate,€remove€andÐ h+¸&* Ðdispose€of€the€pipe€and€then€fill€in€the€area€where€the€pipe€had€been.€€Mr.€Ezell€and€Anthony€Orange,Ð ° ÐDefendantððs€project€superintendent,€discussed€the€pipe€and€agreed€that€Plaintiff€would€be€paid€extraÐ œì Ðto€remove€the€pipe€and€fill€that€area.€€€€à À àà  àÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àRicky€Tipper€acted€as€Plaintiffððs€field€superintendent€for€the€Project.€€Mr.€Ezell€Ð `° Ðinstructed€Mr.€Tipper€to€strip€the€topsoil€on€the€site.€€However,€Mr.€Ezell€did€not€tell€Mr.€Tipper€toÐ L œ Ðstrip€the€topsoil€to€a€specific€depth.€€Rather,€he€assumed€that€Mr.€Tipper€had€been€in€the€constructionÐ 8 ˆ Ðbusiness€long€enough€to€know€what€to€do.€€When€Mr.€Ezell€visited€the€site€several€days€after€theÐ $ t Ðstripping€began,€he€discovered€that€Mr.€Tipper€had€ð ðtaken€out€approximately€two€and€a€half,€threeÐ  ` Ðand€a€half€feet€of€dirt,ðð€rather€than€the€six€inches€provided€for€in€the€subcontract€agreement.€€Mr.Ð ü L  ÐEzell€stopped€his€crew€from€stripping€ð ð[b]ecause€this€was€a€fill€section.€€Anything€that€wasÐ è 8  Ðunsuitable€below€the€six€inches€was€extra€compensation.€€We€couldnððt€go€in€and€get€out€becauseÐ Ô$  Ðevery€inch€they€took€out€over€and€above€the€six€inches€was€material€that€we€had€to€import€back€inÐ À  Ðto€replace.ðð€€€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÔ#†¼Sa»XXe# #ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔÌà  àà ` àMr.€Ezell€then€called€it€to€Mr.€Orangeððs€attention€that€there€was€a€problem€with€theÐ „Ô  Ðsoil€in€the€parking€lot€area.€€Ô#†¼Sa»XXeƒ(#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔMr.€Ezell€dug€some€test€pits€and€he€and€Mr.€Orange€walked€the€site.€€TheÐ pÀ Ðtest€pits€revealed€different€strata€of€material,€some€of€which€appeared€to€be€unsuitable.€€The€test€pitsÐ \¬ Ðdid€not€appear€to€be€consistent€with€the€original€boring€logs€prepared€by€GT&E.€€A€representativeÐ H˜ Ðfrom€GT&E€was€called€out€to€the€site.€€The€GT&E€representative€stated€that€the€soil€thought€to€beÐ 4„ Ðunsuitable€was€brown€silty€clay€that€would€be€compactable€under€optimum€moisture€conditions€andÐ  p ÐÔ#†¼Sa»XXei)#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔsuitable€for€use€as€fill.€€MrÔ#†¼Sa»XXeå+#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔ.€Ezell€disagreed,€but€told€Mr.€Orange€that€they€would€go€ahead€and€leaveÐ  \ Ðthe€soil€in€if€Defendant€so€instructed.€€Mr.€Ezell€claims€that€Mr.€Orange€instructed€him€to€removeÐ øH Ðthe€soil.€€Plaintiff€then€called€in€their€own€geotechnical€engineer,€Southern€Consulting€(ð ðSouthernðð),Ð ä4 Ðto€get€an€opinion.€€Southern€came€out€and€stated€that€the€soils€were€not€compactable€and€not€suitableÐ Ð  Ðfor€use€as€fill.€Ô#†¼Sa»XXeD,#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔÐ ¼  ÐÌà  àà ` àAs€a€result€of€the€disagreement€between€GT&E€and€Southern€regarding€the€soilÐ ”ä Ðconditions,€a€third€geotechnical€engineering€firm,€PSI,€was€called€to€the€site€and€a€meeting€was€heldÐ €Ð Ðon€June€30,€1999,€with€representatives€of€Plaintiff,€Defendant,€the€County,€and€PSI€to€discuss€theÐ l¼ Ðcondition€of€the€site.€€Ô#†¼Sa»XXeg.#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔIt€was€decided€at€this€meeting€that€both€GT&E€and€Southern€would€beÐ X ¨ Ðdismissed€and€Defendant€would€hire€PSI€to€take€over€the€soils€testing.€€Under€the€subcontractÐ D!” Ðagreement,€Plaintiff€had€been€responsible€for€paying€the€geotechnical€engineerððs€fees.€During€theÐ 0"€  Ðmeeting,€iÔ#†¼Sa»XXeA0#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔt€was€suggested€that€the€site€be€taken€down€to€subgrade€and€then€PSI€would€document€theÐ #l! Ðareas€that€were€unsuitable€material.€€Ð $X" ÐÌÔ#†¼Sa»XXeÐ1#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔà  àà ` àAs€a€result€of€the€June€30€meeting,€Mr.€Ezell€was€asked€to€work€up€an€estimate€ofÐ à%0!$ Ðwhat€was€going€to€have€to€be€removed€below€subgrade€due€to€unsuitability.€€Ô#†¼Sa»XXeº2#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔAfter€the€meeting,€Mr.Ð Ì&"% ÐEzell€wrote€a€letter€to€Defendant€ð ðsubmitting€[a]€proposal€to€deal€with€the€unsuitable€materialÐ ¸'#& Ðencountered€on€this€site.ðð€€The€letter€states€that€Plaintiff€had€already€removed€approximately€600Ð ¤(ô#' Ðyards€of€unsuitable€material€and€did€not€charge€for€this€removal.€€The€letter€€estimates€encounteringÐ )à$( Ðanother€1,000€to€1,700€cubic€yards€of€unsuitable€material€on€the€site.€€In€addition,€the€letterÐ |*Ì%) Ðacknowledges€that€PSI€will€take€over€as€the€testing€agency€and€requests€that€either€a€representativeÐ h+¸&* Ðof€PSI€or€of€Defendant€be€present€while€the€work€is€performed€to€verify€the€actual€quantities€ofÐ ° Ðunsuitable€material.€€Ô#†¼Sa»XXeÅ3#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔPlaintiff€admits€that€it€had€an€obligation€to€notify€the€geotechnical€engineerÐ œì Ðwhen€the€excavations€reached€subgrade.€€Ô#†¼Sa»XXe7#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔÐ ˆØ ÐÌà  àà ` àÔ#†¼Sa»XXeâ7#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔPSI€did€perform€some€testing€on€the€site.€€They€proof€rolled€and€documented€severalÐ `° Ðareas€of€unsuitable€soil.€€Proof€rolling€involves€taking€the€area€down€to€subgrade€and€then€runningÐ L œ Ða€heavy€piece€of€machinery€over€the€area€to€establish€if€the€subgrade€is€suitable€to€build€upon.€€TheÐ 8 ˆ Ðgeotechnical€engineer€watches€during€the€process€to€see€if€the€soil€is€giving,€pumping€up€and€down,Ð $ t Ðor€heaving.€€If€the€soil€is€giving,€pumping€up€and€down,€or€heaving,€it€is€unsuitable€to€build€on.€Ð  ` ÐÔ#†¼Sa»XXeR8#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔMarshall€Bassett€from€PSI€stated€ð ðthe€same€findings€that€we€had€in€our€test€pits€were€a€directÐ ü L  Ðcorrelation€to€what€[GT&E]€had€in€their€soils€investigation.ðð€€Ô#†¼Sa»XXeÞ:#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔà È àà  àÐ è 8  ÐÌà  àà ` àMike€Leonard,€the€Countyððs€architect,€attended€the€June€30th€meeting€and€laterÐ À  Ðprepared€notes€regarding€the€meeting.€€The€notes€document€that€ð ð[s]everal€pockets€of€ððnon„Ð ¬ü  Ðcompactableðð€soilðð€have€been€discovered€on€the€site€and€that€removal€of€these€materials€would€beÐ ˜è  Ðmonitored€by€PSI.€€The€notes€also€state€that€ð ð[t]o€the€greatest€extent€possible,€soil€material€availableÐ „Ô  Ðon€site€will€be€used€for€fill.€€Areas€that€currently€require€excavation€below€the€estimated€depth€of€theÐ pÀ Ðððbad€soilðð€(detention€pond€and€main€entry€drive)€will€be€used€to€acquire€as€much€ððgoodðð€material€asÐ \¬ Ðpossible.ðð€€The€notes€further€state€that€Defendant€was€to€work€up€an€estimated€quantity€of€badÐ H˜ Ðmaterial€and€a€price€for€removal.€€Ô#†¼Sa»XXeØ;#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔÐ 4„ ÐÔ#†¼Sa»XXeÐ?#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔÌà  àà ` àMr.€Tipper€claims€that€as€the€job€progressed,€he€kept€Mr.€Orange€informed€as€theyÐ  \ Ðran€into€unsuitable€soil€and€that€in€most€cases€Mr.€Orange€would€instruct€them€to€take€the€soil€out.€Ð øH ÐÔ#†¼Sa»XXe'@#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔMr.€Tipper€states€that€Mr.€Orange€ð ðwould€have€the€geotechnical€people€come€out€and€look€at,€butÐ ä4 Ðmost€of€the€time€he€would€just€tell€me€to€take€it€out.ðð€€Ô#†¼Sa»XXebA#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔMr.€Tipper€further€claims€that€Mr.€Orange€toldÐ Ð  Ðhim€to€ð ðkeep€up€with€how€many€loads€of€material€it€took€to€bring€the€job€back€up€to€subgradeðð€inÐ ¼  Ðorder€to€document€the€amount€of€unsuitable€soil.€€Mr.€Tipper€claims€that€he€was€told€to€do€thisÐ ¨ø Ðregarding€ð ð[t]he€whole€unsuitable€material,€[the€concrete€pipe],€the€whole€job€.€.€.€.ðð€€€Ð ”ä ÐÔ#†¼Sa»XXeWB#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔÌà  àà ` àMr.€Tipper€asserts€that€€ð ð[t]he€whole€job€was€unsuitable.€.€.€.€there€were€spots€that€weÐ l¼ Ðdidnððt€have€to€take€out€but€in€general€the€whole€site€was€unsuitable€from€the€entranceway€up€the€road€Ð X ¨ Є€„€the€best€area€that€we€didnððt€have€to€take€much€out€of€was€this€building€pad€and€the€back€leg€of€thisÐ D!” Ðbuilding€pad.€.€.€.€Most€of€the€entranceway€was€undercut.€€It€was€even€undercut€right€down€here€atÐ 0"€  Ðthe€very€entrance.€€I€mean,€basically€the€whole€job.ðð€€Mr.€Tipper€claims€that€none€of€the€material€inÐ #l! Ðthe€cut€section€above€subgrade€was€suitable€for€use€as€fill.€€Mr.€Tipper,€however,€is€not€aÐ $X" Ðgeotechnical€engineer.€€Ð ô$D # ÐÔ#†¼Sa»XXeAD#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔÌà  àà ` àMr.€Orange€disputes€the€claim€that€he€instructed€Plaintiff€to€remove€so€much€soil.€Ð Ì&"% ÐÔ#†¼Sa»XXe›G#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔMr.€Orange€admits€that€he€directed€Plaintiff€to€remove€soil€in€two€specific€areas,€the€area€where€theÐ ¸'#& Ðconcrete€pipe€was€encountered€and€an€area€in€the€drive€due€to€the€excessive€amount€of€truck€traffic.€Ð ¤(ô#' ÐMr.€Orange€asserts€he€did€not€tell€Plaintiff€to€keep€up€with€the€truck€tickets€to€document€undercuttingÐ )à$( Ðbecause€that€ð ðwould€be€kind€of€giving€him€a€blank€check€if€I€told€him€just€to€keep€up€with€the€loads.ðð€Ð |*Ì%) Ѐ€Ð h+¸&* Ðà  àà ` àPlaintiff€admits€that€neither€the€county,€nor€the€architect,€ever€directed€Plaintiff€toÐ ° Ðremove€any€material€other€than€what€PSI€had€authorized.€€Beyond€the€areas€that€the€parties€agreeÐ œì Ðwere€authorized€by€PSI,€Plaintiff€cannot€identify€from€which€areas€on€the€site€the€unsuitableÐ ˆØ Ðmaterials€were€removed.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€submitted€several€change€orders€to€Defendant€for€payment.€€Portions€of€theÐ L œ Ðchange€orders€dealt€with€unverified€soil€claimed€to€be€unsuitable.€€Some€confusion€was€involvedÐ 8 ˆ Ðregarding€payment€of€the€change€orders,€but€in€the€end,€Defendant€paid€only€a€portion€of€the€changeÐ $ t Ðorders.€€Ô#†¼Sa»XXe^H#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔDefendant€did€pay€the€portions€of€the€change€orders€dealing€with€the€areas€that€PSI€hadÐ  ` Ðverified€as€unsuitable.€€Plaintiff€then€sued€Defendant€for€breach€of€contract€claiming€that€DefendantÐ ü L  Ðfailed€to€pay€for€removal€of€unsuitable€soil€as€provided€in€the€subcontract€agreement.€€DefendantÐ è 8  Ðfiled€a€thirty€party€complaint€against€the€County.€€Ð Ô$  ÐÌà  àà ` àAfter€a€bench€trial,€the€Trial€Court€granted€the€County€a€ð ðdirected€verdictðð,€dismissedÐ ¬ü  ÐPlaintiffððs€claims€against€Defendant,€and€entered€judgment€in€favor€of€Defendant€against€PlaintiffÐ ˜è  Ðin€the€amount€of€$55,000€for€its€attorneyððs€fees€and€expenses.€€Plaintiff€then€filed€a€motion€to€alterÐ „Ô  Ðor€amend€the€judgment.€€The€Trial€Court€altered€the€attorneyððs€fees€awarded€in€the€judgment€fromÐ pÀ Ð$55,000€to€$46,843.50,€but€denied€the€remainder€of€the€motion€to€alter€or€amend.€€Plaintiff€appealsÐ \¬ Ðto€this€Court.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌÓ  Óò òòòDiscussionóóó óÐ  p ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àà ` àAlthough€not€stated€exactly€as€such,€Plaintiff€raises€six€issues€on€appeal:€1)€whetherÐ øH Ðthe€Trial€Court€erred€in€ruling€that€there€were€no€modifications€to€the€subcontract;€2)€whether€theÐ ä4 ÐTrial€Court€erred€by€placing€the€burden€of€proving€the€existence€of€unsuitable€material€on€Plaintiff;Ð Ð  Ð3)€whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€considering€Plaintiffððs€delay€in€presenting€the€fourth€payÐ ¼  Ðapplication;€4)€whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€making€its€decision€based€upon€a€suspicion€thatÐ ¨ø ÐPlaintiff€underbid€the€project;€5)€whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€finding€that€the€subcontract€doesÐ ”ä Ðnot€entitle€Plaintiff€to€recover€additional€compensation€for€removing€unsuitable€materials€aboveÐ €Ð Ðsubgrade;€and€6)€whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€finding€that€Plaintiff€calculated€its€damages€byÐ l¼ Ðextrapolation.€€We€will€address€each€issue€in€turn€as€necessary.Ð X ¨ ÐÌà  àà ` àÔ‡ XeXXXeÔOur€review€is€Ý‚=ÿÿÿÝòòÝ  Ýde€novoóóÝ‚=ÿ»V†ÝÝ  Ý€upon€the€record,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctnessÐ 0"€  Ðof€the€findings€of€fact€of€the€trial€court,€unless€the€preponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.Ð #l! ÐR.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòBogan€v.€Boganóó,€60€S.W.3d€721,€727€(Tenn.€2001).€€A€trial€court's€conclusions€ofÐ $X" Ðlaw€are€subject€to€a€Ý‚=ÿÿÿÝòòÝ  Ýde€novoóóÝ‚=ÿuXÔ#ÝÝ  Ý€review€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€Ý‚=ÿÿÿÝòòÝ  ÝS.€Constructors,€Inc.€v.Ð ô$D # ÐLoudon€County€Bd.€of€Educ.Ý‚=ÿÿÿúXƒÝóóÝ  Ý,€58€S.W.3d€706,€710€(Tenn.€2001).€Ô#†XeXX XeŽV#ÔÔ‡XeXXXeÔÐ à%0!$ ÐÌÔ#†XeXXXeËY#ÔÔ#†¼Sa»XXe¹M#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔà  àà ` àWe€begin€by€considering€whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€ruling€that€there€were€noÐ ¸'#& Ðmodifications€to€the€subcontract.€€In€its€Memorandum€Opinion€entered€February€15,€2002,€the€TrialÐ ¤(ô#' ÐCourt€found:€Ð )à$( Ðà8  àà ` àThe€meeting€of€June€30,€1999€and€the€subsequent€positions€taken€by€each€ofÐ |*Ì%) Ðthe€three€parties€are€consistent€with€the€terms€of€both€the€master€contract€between€theÐ h+¸&* ÐCounty€and€[Defendant]€and€the€subcontract€between€[Defendant]€and€[Plaintiff].€Ð ° ÐThe€Court€finds€there€was€no€modification€of€the€obligations€of€each€party€as€theyÐ œì Ðexisted€under€the€original€written€contracts.ЈØÐ Ð  ÐÔ#†¼Sa»XXeFZ#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔÌPlaintiff€argues€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€this€finding,€in€part,€because€the€evidenceÐ `° Ðshows€that€the€responsibility€for€geotechnical€testing€was€shifted€from€Plaintiff€to€Defendant€afterÐ L œ Ðthe€June€30th€meeting.€€The€parties€agree€that€several€things€happened€as€a€result€of€the€June€30thÐ 8 ˆ Ðmeeting;€both€GT&E€and€Southern€were€dismissed,€€PSI€was€hired€by€Defendant€to€perform€futureÐ $ t Ðgeotechnical€testing,€and€Plaintiff€agreed€to€credit€Defendant€for€the€unused€geotechnical€feesÐ  ` Ðprovided€for€in€the€subcontract.€€Plaintiff€argues€that€these€agreements€affected€its€right€to€be€paidÐ ü L  Ðfor€removing€unsuitable€material.€€Plaintiff€claims€that€after€the€June€meeting,€it€no€longer€had€theÐ è 8  Ðright€to€contact€the€geotechnical€engineer€to€establish€if€materials€were€unsuitable,€and,€therefore,Ð Ô$  Ðthe€subcontract€was€modified.€€€€Ð À  ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€has€misconstrued€the€Trial€Courtððs€finding.€€The€Trial€Court€found€that€ð ðthereÐ ˜è  Ðwas€no€modification€of€the€òòobligationsóó€of€each€party€as€they€existed€under€the€original€writtenÐ „Ô  Ðcontracts.ðð€(emphasis€added).€€€€The€evidence€supports€this€finding.€€There€is€no€dispute€that,€bothÐ pÀ Ðbefore€and€after€the€June€30th€meeting,€Plaintiff€is€entitled€to€be€paid€only€for€removal€of€unsuitableÐ \¬ Ðsoils€and€not€for€the€unnecessary€removal€of€suitable€materials.€€There€also€is€no€dispute€that,€bothÐ H˜ Ðbefore€and€after€the€June€30th€meeting,€the€determination€of€whether€material€was€unsuitable€wasÐ 4„ Ðto€made€by€a€geotechnical€engineer.€€In€addition,€both€before€and€after€the€meeting,€Defendant€wasÐ  p Ðobligated€to€pay€for€the€removal€of€material€determined€by€the€geotechnical€engineer€to€beÐ  \ Ðunsuitable.€€Despite€the€shift€of€responsibility€for€contacting€the€geotechnical€engineer,€the€evidenceÐ øH Ðshows€that€the€relevant€obligations€of€the€parties€remained€unchanged€after€the€meeting.€€TheÐ ä4 Ðevidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€finding€that€there€was€no€modification€toÐ Ð  Ðthe€relevant€obligations€of€each€party.€€€€Ð ¼  Ðà  àà ` àÌà  àà ` àNext,€we€consider€whether€the€Trial€Court€erred€by€placing€the€burden€to€prove€theÐ ”ä Ðexistence€of€unsuitable€material€on€PlaintiffÔ#†¼Sa»XXeš]#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔ.€€With€regard€to€burden€of€proof,€our€Supreme€Court€hasÐ €Ð Ðstated:Ð l¼ Ðà8  àà ` àWith€respect€to€the€question€of€who€bears€the€burden€of€proof,€it€is€a€generalÐ X ¨ Ðprinciple€in€Tennessee€that€the€burden€rests€on€the€party€who€affirms,€not€on€the€partyÐ D!” Ðwho€denies.€.€.€.€ðð[t]he€burden€of€proof€is€on€the€party€having€the€affirmative€of€theÐ 0"€  Ðissue,€and€the€burden€of€proof€never€shifts.€€The€plaintiff€had€the€burden€of€provingÐ #l! Ðthe€elements€of€her€theory€of€recovery€and€the€facts€which€she€alleged€in€herÐ $X" Ðcomplaint.ðððð€€€€Ðô$D #Ð Ð  ÐòòWaste€Conversion€Sys.,€Inc.€v.€Greenstone€Indus.,€Inc.óó,€33€S.W.3d€779,€783€(Tenn.€2000)€(citationsÐ à%0!$ Ðomitted).€€Ð Ì&"% ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€argues€that€the€responsibility€to€determine€if€there€was€unsuitable€soil€wasÐ ¤(ô#' Ðassumed€by€Defendant€when€PSI€was€hired.€€Plaintiff€argues€that€because€it€no€longer€had€theÐ )à$( Ðresponsibility€for€contacting€the€company€who€was€to€perform€the€geotechnical€testing€that€it€wasÐ |*Ì%) Ðimpossible€for€Plaintiff€to€prove€the€existence€of€unsuitable€soils.€€Based€upon€this€impossibility,Ð h+¸&* ÐPlaintiff€asserts€that€there€are€several€different€theories€that€would€allow€Plaintiff€to€recover€for€theÐ ° Ðextra€work€performed.€€We€disagree.€€Ð œì ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€sued€for€breach€of€contract.€€As€a€matter€of€law,€Plaintiff€carries€the€burdenÐ tÄ Ðof€proving€each€element€of€its€breach€of€contract€claim.€€As€Plaintiff€claims€that€Defendant€is€inÐ `° Ðbreach€by€not€paying€Plaintiff€for€the€removal€of€unsuitable€soil,€Plaintiff€has€the€burden€of€provingÐ L œ Ðthat€the€soil€removed€was€unsuitable.€€If€the€soil€were€suitable€for€building,€Plaintiff€would€not€beÐ 8 ˆ Ðentitled€under€the€contract€to€be€paid.€€Nothing€in€the€contract€prohibited€Plaintiff€from€undertakingÐ $ t Ðtests€to€prove€that€the€soil€it€was€removing€was,€in€fact,€unsuitable.€€Plaintiff€always€had€that€option.€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àFurther,€the€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€finding€that€theÐ è 8  Ðsoil€was€suitable,€not€unsuitable.€€Mr.€Bassett,€a€geotechnical€engineer€from€PSI,€testified€that€theÐ Ô$  Ðsoil€was€suitable€for€buildingÔ#†¼Sa»XXeh#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔ.Ô#†¼Sa»XXeWr#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔ€€Eric€Snyder,€the€geotechnical€engineer€who€prepared€the€GT&E€soilsÐ À  Ðreport,€testified€that€the€soil€was€suitable.€€In€addition,€the€soils€report€prepared€by€GT&E€was€madeÐ ¬ü  Ðan€exhibit€at€trial.€€The€only€evidence€Plaintiff€produced€to€the€contrary€was€the€testimony€of€Mr.Ð ˜è  ÐEzell,€Mr.€Tipper,€and€Marvin€Parker,€Plaintiffððs€chief€manager,€that€they€believed€the€soil€wasÐ „Ô  Ðunsuitable.€€However,€Mr.€Ezell,€Mr.€Tipper,€and€Mr.€Parker€are€not€geotechnical€engineers.€€Thus,Ð pÀ Ðthe€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€implicit€finding€that€the€soil€wasÐ \¬ Ðsuitable€when€it€found€that€Plaintiff€failed€to€prove€that€the€soil€was€unsuitable.€€Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àà ` àNo€matter€who€was€responsible€for€contacting€the€geotechnical€engineer,€Plaintiff€Ð  p Ðhad€the€burden€of€proving€each€and€every€element€of€its€breach€of€contract€claim€in€order€to€prevail.€Ð  \ ÐPlaintiff€did€not€carry€its€burden€at€trial€of€proving€that€the€soil€removed€was€unsuitable.€€We€findÐ øH Ðno€error€in€regard€to€this€issue.€Ð ä4 ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€also€claims€it€is€entitled€to€recover€under€theories€of€quantum€meruit€orÐ ¼  Ðimplied„in„fact€contract.€€These€theories€are€quasi€contractual€in€nature.€€As€this€Court€has€statedòòóó:Ð ¨ø ÐÌà8  àà ` àQuasi„contractual€liability€can€be€created€where€one€person€receives€a€benefitÐ €Ð Ðat€the€expense€of€another€and€it€is€unjust€or€inequitable€for€him€to€retain€this€benefit.€Ð l¼ ÐThe€most€important€factor€for€recovery€under€a€quasi„contractual€theory€is€that€theÐ X ¨ Ðenrichment€must€be€unjust.€€The€primary€purpose€of€implied€contracts€is€to€imposeÐ D!” Ðan€obligation€that€ought€to€be€done€as€a€matter€of€justice€and€equity€in€the€absence€ofÐ 0"€  Ðexpress€contracts.€€A€contract€cannot€be€implied,€however,€where€a€valid€contractÐ #l! Ðexists€on€the€same€subject€matter.€€Ð$X"Ð Ð  ÐòòÌJaffe€v.€Boltonóó,€817€S.W.2d€19,€26€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991)€(citations€omitted).€€Since€there€is€a€validÐ à%0!$ Ðcontract€that€addresses€the€subject€matter,€quasi„contractual€theories€do€not€apply.€€Plaintiff€cannotÐ Ì&"% Ðrecover€under€these€theories.€€€€€€Ð ¸'#& ÐÌÔ#†¼Sa»XXešr#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔà  àà ` àPlaintiff€further€argues€that€Defendant€should€be€estopped€from€denying€payment.€Ð )à$( ÐPlaintiff€claims€that€Defendant€was€present€while€the€material€was€being€removed,€that€PlaintiffÐ |*Ì%) Ðinformed€Defendant€about€the€unsuitable€material,€and€that€Defendant€directed€Plaintiff€to€removeÐ h+¸&* Ðthe€material€and€keep€up€with€the€truck€loads.€€Defendant€disputes€that€it€knew€about€the€claimedÐ ° Ðunsuitable€material€or€that€it€ever€instructed€Plaintiff€to€remove€the€material€and€just€keep€up€withÐ œì Ðthe€truck€loads.€€Resolution€of€this€issue,€thus,€hinges€upon€factual€findings€and€credibilityÐ ˆØ Ðdeterminations€made€by€the€Trial€Court.€€Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àà ` àð ðWhen€a€trial€court€has€seen€and€heard€witnesses,€especially€where€issues€ofÐ L œ Ðcredibility€and€weight€of€oral€testimony€are€involved,€considerable€deference€must€be€accorded€toÐ 8 ˆ Ðthe€trial€court's€factual€findings.ðð€€òòSeals€v.€England/Corsair€Upholstery€Mfg.€Co.óó,€984€S.W.2d€912,Ð $ t Ð915€(Tenn.€1999)€(quoting€òòCollins€v.€Howmet€Corp.óó,€970€S.W.2d€941,€943€(Tenn.1998)).€€Ô#†¼Sa»XXe¨|#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔÐ  ` ÐÌà  àà ` àThe€Trial€Court€saw€and€heard€the€witnesses€and€did€not€find€that€Defendant€shouldÐ è 8  Ðbe€estopped€from€denying€payment.€€By€implication,€the€Trial€Court€found€the€testimony€and€otherÐ Ô$  Ðevidence€in€favor€of€Defendant€to€be€more€credible.€€We€accord€the€Trial€Court€considerableÐ À  Ðdeference€in€weighing€oral€testimony€and€determining€credibility.€€The€evidence€does€notÐ ¬ü  Ðpreponderate€against€the€Trial€Courtððs€findings€which€led€it€to€hold€that€Defendant€should€not€beÐ ˜è  Ðestopped€from€denying€payment.€€We€find€no€error€here€by€the€Trial€Court.€€€€Ð „Ô  ÐÌà  àà ` àPlaintiff€also€claims€that€an€excuse€of€a€condition€precedent€entitles€it€to€payment.€Ð \¬ ÐPlaintiff€claims€that€under€the€subcontract,€a€determination€that€the€soil€is€unsuitable€is€a€conditionÐ H˜ Ðprecedent€to€Defendantððs€duty€to€pay.€€We€agree€with€this€assertion.€€Plaintiff€further€claims€thatÐ 4„ ÐDefendant€was€under€a€duty€not€to€hinder€or€frustrate€the€occurrence€of€the€condition,€the€verificationÐ  p Ðthat€the€material€was€unsuitable.€€Plaintiff€apparently€claims€that€Defendant€refused€to€take€steps€toÐ  \ Ðverify€the€unsuitability€of€the€material€and,€thus,€excused€the€condition€precedent€to€payment.€€AsÐ øH Ðwith€the€issue€of€estoppel€discussed€above,€this€issue€hinges€upon€factual€findings€and€credibilityÐ ä4 Ðdeterminations€made€by€the€Trial€Court.€€The€record€is€devoid€of€evidence€showing€that€DefendantÐ Ð  Ðhindered€or€frustrated€any€attempts€by€Plaintiff€to€verify€that€the€material€was€unsuitable.€€Nor€wasÐ ¼  Ðany€evidence€produced€showing€that€Plaintiff€was€prohibited€at€any€time€from€testing€the€soil.€€TheÐ ¨ø Ðevidence€does€not€support€a€finding€that€Defendant€excused€the€condition€that€the€soil€be€unsuitableÐ ”ä Ðbefore€Defendant€would€be€obligated€to€pay€for€its€removal.€€€Ð €Ð ÐÌà  àà ` àOur€resolution€of€the€issue€regarding€Plaintiffððs€burden€of€proving€the€soil€unsuitableÐ X ¨ Ðrenders€Plaintiffððs€remaining€issues€moot.€€Even€if€the€Trial€Court€erred€in€regard€to€some€otherÐ D!” Ðissue,€and€we€in€no€way€suggest€that€any€error€occurred,€any€error€in€regard€to€these€issues€wasÐ 0"€  Ðharmless€as€Plaintiff€did€not€prove€the€elements€of€its€breach€of€contract€claim€and€was€not€entitledÐ #l! Ðto€prevail.€€We,€therefore,€affirm€the€Trial€Courtððs€dismissal€of€Plaintiffððs€claims€against€Defendant.€Ð $X" ÐÌÌÌÌÌ€€€€Ð )à$( ÐÌÐ h+¸&* ÐÓ  Óò òòòConclusionó óóóÐ ° ÐÓ  ÓÌà  àà ` àThe€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€is€affirmed,€and€this€cause€is€remanded€to€the€TrialÐ ˆØ ÐCourt€for€such€further€proceedings€as€may€be€required,€if€any,€consistent€with€this€Opinion€and€forÐ tÄ Ðcollection€of€the€costs€below.€€The€costs€on€appeal€are€assessed€against€the€Appellant,€AmericanÐ `° ÐExcavators,€LLC,€and€its€surety.€€Ð L œ ÐÔ#†¼Sa»XXeÄ#ÔÔ‡XeX»¼SaÔÌÔ#†¼Sa»XXeíŽ#ÔÔ€XeX»¼SaÔÌÌÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð À  Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àD.€MICHAEL€SWINEY,€JUDGE