ÿWPCt& 9# .UN9 %‡ 0 ñUN~w@Ì4  / 0 57 0Dl 0J° 0Tú 0^N 0h¬ 0r 0|† 0† 0ˆ 1u 0d U >ñ B)/DCX AM› BèU*r/ AQ¡Æò 0D¸ 0@ü 0D< D/€ B¯ D3Ì]ÿƒ\Aß9 5Y¢Ž"0ÑRv~#vÓ¡ ˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLhÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(Ɇ$¡¡Ñ°°ÑѰ°ÑÒ°°ÒÒ°°ÒÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal[  AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ Legal AØ'ÿ LegalTÑÓÓÔ€X”XXXÔ(ÖÃ9 Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular ÿ DDDVVpeÓ€ê‚_#úÿÿú, ú3|x(å(3¤$¤¤Ý ƒ†!ÝѰ°ÑѰ°ÑÒ°°ÒÒ°°ÒÓ  ÓÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÓÓÔ€XáRXXXÔÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd&( Cþÿ << Gÿÿ d< Œ 9p`(Arial hÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ'"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌDecemberÏ17,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.ÏCrowsonÌAppellateÏCourtÏClerkÔ  Ôó ó&'()*Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó++'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd""""'ÿÿdxd SÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThe€McKinneysðð€expert€testified€that€this€expense€would€cost€$2,400.00.€€Ì yÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓBirdwell€did€not€make€a€hearsay€objection€to€McKinneyððs€testimony€about€what€LassiterÏtold€him.€€Ì 7Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓBirdwell€also€argues€that€Lassiterððs€receipt€is€inadmissible€hearsay.€€The€McKinneysÏcorrectly€counter€that€Birdwell€is€barred€from€asserting€this€defense€since€he€did€not€raise€anÏobjection€at€trial.€€ò òòòSee€Pyle€ex€rel.€Pyle€v.€Morrisonó óóó,€716€S.W.2d€930,€936€(Tenn.€App.Ï1986).Ì /Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝThis€was€done€in€breach€of€the€contract.Ì +Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝBoth€parties€challenge€this€finding.Ì ˜Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓFrom€Birdwellððs€brief,€it€is€somewhat€difficult€to€ascertain€which€specific€findings€of€theÏtrial€court€that€Birdwell€contests.€Ì Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝMcKinney€is€6'5".Ì ÇÝ ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝÓÓBirdwellððs€brief€€alleges€that,€although€Bradley€McKinney€is€a€tall€man,€ð ðhe€is€not€KrimÏAbdul€Jabbar€[sic],ðð€and,€thus,€the€discrepancy€in€height€should€not€bother€him.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓÓÝ  ÝÓÓò ò›œ›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEó óÌò òà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌóóÌGARY€BIRDWELL,€individually€andà à)à àÌd/b/a€BIRDWELL€HOME€BUILDERS,à à)Ìó óà àà àà àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌà àPlaintiff/Counter„Defendantò ò/€€€€€€à à)à àó óRobertson€Circuit€No.€6973€€€€Ìà àAppellee,à àà àà àà àò ò)ó óÌò òà àà àà àà àà àà à)ó óà àà àÌÙ€&Ùò òœßR€!$ A1-j|·üã` 2 `€€@ÿRß›v.à àà àà àà àà àà à)à àó óAppeal€No.€01A01„9701„CV„00023ò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌBRADLEY€S.€McKINNEY€and€à àà à)ÌELIZABETH€P.€McKINNEY,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àó óDefendants/Counter„Plaintiffs/ò òà à)Ìà àó óAppellants.à àò òà àà àà à)ÌÌÌÌà@ àó óAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€ROBERTSON€COUNTYÌà@ àAT€SPRINGFIELD,€TENNESSEEÌÌÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€JAMES€E.€WALTON,€JUDGE€€ÌòòÌÌÌFor€the€Plaintiff/Counter„Defendant/à àà àFor€the€Defendants/Counter„Plaintiffs/ÌAppelleeóó:à àà àà àà àà àòòAppellantsóó:òòÌóóÌHomer€R.€Ayers€€€€€€à àà àà àà àSteven€E.€Anderson€ÌGoodlettsville,€Tennesseeà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌÌÌò òÌà àà àà àà àà àà àAFFIRMED€IN€PART€ANDÌà àà àà àà àà àà àREVERSED€IN€PARTÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àó óHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCURS:ÌòòÌóóDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€J.€ÌÌÇØØÙ  ÙÓÓÑ7€ÌÎXXdðXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àò òOPINIONó óÌà àThis€case€arises€out€of€the€construction€of€a€home.€€The€builder€filed€suit€against€theÏhomeowners€for€monies€allegedly€due€him,€and€the€homeowners€countersued€for€alleged€contractÏbreaches€and€defects€in€construction.€€The€trial€court€found€that€both€parties€had€breached€theÏcontract€and€awarded€damages€to€both€parties€with€a€balance€due€the€builder.€€Both€parties€appeal.€ÏWe€affirm€in€part€and€reverse€in€part.Ìà àIn€1993,€Plaintiff/Counter„Defendant/Appellee€Gary€Birdwell€(ð ðBirdwellðð)€andÏDefendant/Counter„Plaintiff/Appellants€Bradley€and€Elizabeth€McKinney€(ð ðMcKinneysðð)€enteredÏinto€a€contract€for€Birdwell€to€construct€a€residence€for€the€McKinneys€in€Robertson€County,ÏTennessee.€€The€contract€incorporated€by€reference€plans€and€specifications€and€set€forth€a€contractÏprice€of€$158,472.00,€subject€to€certain€ð ðallowancesðð€specified€within€the€agreement.€€The€partiesÏagreed€that€the€purchase€price€would€not€exceed€this€amount€so€long€as€the€costs€listed€in€theÏallowance€provision€did€not€exceed€the€amounts€stipulated.€€The€contract€stated€that€allÏmodifications€must€be€in€writing.Ìà àConstruction€on€the€house€began€in€August€of€1993.€€The€parties€continually€bickeredÏabout€numerous€alleged€deviations€during€the€construction.€€Bradley€McKinney€began€to€closelyÏoversee€the€progress€of€the€construction€and€even€began€to€pay€some€of€the€sub„contractors€directlyÏfor€allowance€items.€€The€McKinneys€moved€into€the€house€in€May€1994€before€the€home€wasÏcompleted,€and€changed€the€locks.€€At€the€scheduled€closing€in€June€1994,€the€McKinneys€refusedÏto€pay€the€full€contract€price.€€Consequently,€Birdwell€filed€this€lawsuit.€€€€Ìà àThe€McKinneys€had€already€tendered€to€Birdwell€$92,000.00.€€In€his€lawsuit,€BirdwellÏclaimed€that€he€was€owed€the€total€sum€of€$41,877.65.€€This€included€the€remainder€of€the€contractÏprice€due€(less€allowance€items€for€which€the€McKinneys€had€reimbursed€him)€plus€$4,151.65€forÏthe€McKinneyððs€alleged€refusal€to€pay€him€for€certain€modifications€or€additions€to€the€agreement.€Ìà àThe€McKinneys€countersued€for€alleged€breaches€of€the€contract€and€alleged€defects€inÏconstruction€committed€by€Birdwell.€€The€McKinneys€sought€damages€totaling€$22,184.86.€€€ÏBoth€parties€sought€attorneysðð€fees.Ìà àAfter€a€bench€trial,€the€trial€court€held€that€both€parties€had€breached€the€contract.€€The€trialÏcourt€found€that€Birdwell€had€breached€the€contract€by€varying€from€the€plans.€€It€also€found€thatÏthe€McKinneys€had€breached€the€contract,€by€refusing€to€pay€for€construction€performed,€makingÏmodifications€during€the€construction,€and€interfering€with€Birdwellððs€ability€to€perform.Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€that€Birdwell€had€incurred€damages€totaling€$40,377.11.€€The€trial€Ïcourt€also€found€that€the€McKinneys€incurred€damages€of€$29,957.01€as€a€result€of€BirdwellððsÏbreach.€€After€setting€off€the€damage€awards,€the€trial€court€held€that€the€McKinneys€owedÏBirdwell€a€total€of€$10,420.10.€€Neither€party€was€awarded€attorneysðð€fees.€€Both€parties€nowÏappeal€the€decision€of€the€trial€court.Ìà àOn€appeal,€both€parties€raise€a€host€of€issues.€€The€McKinneys€assert€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€considering€alleged€oral€modifications€to€the€contract,€when€the€contract€explicitly€statesÏthat€all€modifications€must€be€in€writing.€€In€addition,€the€McKinneys€argue€that€the€trial€court€erredÏby€failing€to€credit€the€McKinneys€the€sum€of€$4200.00€for€allegedly€having€paid€Birdwell€twiceÏfor€certain€bathroom€fixtures.€€The€McKinneys€further€contend€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€toÏcredit€the€McKinneys€for€damages€caused€by€alleged€defects€in€construction€caused€by€Birdwell.€ÏThe€McKinneys€also€assert€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€awarding€them€attorneysðð€fees€and€aÏcontractorððs€profit.Ìà àBirdwell€alleges€on€appeal€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€finding€that€Birdwell€had€breachedÏcertain€provisions€of€the€contract.€€Birdwell€also€contends€that€the€proper€measure€of€damagesÏshould€have€been€the€difference€between€the€value€of€the€house€if€properly€built€and€the€value€ofÏthe€house€in€its€defective€condition.€€Birdwell€further€argues€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€calculatingÏdamages€based€on€the€testimony€of€the€McKinneysðð€expert.€€Birdwell€also€seeks€attorneysðð€fees,Ïprejudgment€interest€amounting€to€$5,177.34,€and€$5000.00€for€ð ðadditional€time€spend€[sic]€andÏdelays€in€the€performance€of€the€Contract€caused€by€McKinneyððs€actions.ððÌà àOur€review€of€the€findings€of€fact€by€the€trial€court€is€ò òòòde€novoó óóó€upon€the€record€of€the€trialÏcourt,€accompanied€by€a€presumption€of€correctness€of€the€factual€findings€unless€theÍpreponderance€of€the€evidence€is€otherwise.€€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€13(d).€€Questions€of€law€are€ò òòòdeÏnovoóóó ó€with€no€presumption€of€correctness.€€ò òòòCarvell€v.€Bottoms,ó óóó€900€S.W.2d€23,€26€(Tenn.Ï1995).Ìà àThe€McKinneys€assert€first€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€considering€alleged€oralÏmodifications€to€the€contract,€in€light€of€the€express€contractual€provision€that€all€modifications€toÏthe€contract€must€be€in€writing€and€signed€by€both€parties.€€The€McKinneys€argue€that€this€clauseÏshould€be€strictly€enforced.Ìà àIt€has€been€held€that€written€contracts€may€be€orally€modified€even€if€the€contract€containsÏsuch€a€clause.€€ò òòòCo„operative€Stores€Co.€v.€United€States€Fidelity€&€Guaranty€Co.,ó óóóÏ137€Tenn.€609,€622„23,€195€S.W.€177,€180€(1917).€€In€òòò òMoore€Construction€Co.€v.ÏClarksville€Dept.€of€Elec.,ó óóó€707€S.W.2d€1€(Tenn.€App.€1985),€the€court€considered€a€writtenÏchange€order€requirement€in€a€construction€contract.€€The€court€held€that€although€such€a€clause€isÏvalid,€it€may€be€waived.€€ò òòòId.€óóó óat€12„13.€€According€to€the€court:ÌÓÓà8 àà àThe€waiver€of€a€written€change€order€requirement€by€an€owner€is€not€alwaysÏrequired€to€be€in€writing€but€may€be€the€result€of€the€partiesðð€conduct€on€the€job.€ÏThus,€it€is€not€uncommon€for€courts€to€find€that€an€owner€has€waived€a€writtenÏnotice€requirement€in€cases€where€extra€work€has€been€ordered€verbally€by€theÏowner€or€the€extra€work€has€been€performed€with€the€ownerððs€knowledge€andÏwithout€its€objection.Ìò òòòÌÓÓId.€ó óóóat€13€(citation€omitted).Ìà àIn€the€case€at€bar,€the€partiesðð€conduct€indicates€that€the€clause€was€waived€by€theÏMcKinneys.€€On€numerous€occasions€throughout€the€construction,€the€parties€orally€consented€toÏdeviations€from€the€exact€specifications€set€forth€in€the€contract.€€The€record€indicates€that,€in€fact,Ïseveral€of€these€oral€modifications€were€proposed€by€the€McKinneys.€€The€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€provision€was€waived,€and€the€trial€court€didÏnot€err€by€considering€oral€modifications€to€the€contract.€Ìà àOn€appeal,€the€McKinneys€dispute€the€trial€courtððs€factual€findings€that€the€contract€wasÏorally€modified€with€regard€to:€(1)€an€upgrade€in€plumbing;€(2)€stair€parts€and€labor;€(3)€garageÍdoor€openers;€(4)€additional€framing€for€an€overhang;€(5)€an€extension€of€a€water€line;€and€(6)Ïadditional€insulation.€€Each€of€these€issues€is€addressed€below.Ìà àWith€regard€to€the€plumbing€upgrade,€the€trial€court€held€that€the€McKinneys€wereÏresponsible€for€$1,206.00€in€costs€resulting€from€their€demand€to€upgrade€the€plumbing€fromÏchrome€to€brass.€€The€McKinney€argue€that€no€ð ðupgradeðð€occurred.€€They€claim€that€theÏspecifications€section€of€the€contract€(ð ðspecificationsðð)€provides€that€several€plumbing€fixtures€areÏð ðselect,ðð€meaning€that€the€homeowner€chooses€the€desired€type€of€fixture.€€The€McKinneys€alsoÏargue€that€Birdwell€has€no€standing€to€assert€this€claim,€since€the€plumbing€sub„contractor€is€theÏentity€that€has€not€been€paid,€and€this€sub„contractor€has€not€filed€a€claim€with€Birdwell.Ìà àAfter€reviewing€the€contract€and€the€evidence€in€the€record,€the€evidence€preponderates€inÏfavor€of€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€McKinneys€sought€an€upgrade€from€the€specifications€inÏthe€contract.€€The€McKinneysðð€argument€that€Birdwell€has€no€standing€is€without€merit,€since€theÏrecord€indicates€that€Birdwell€is€liable€to€the€sub„contractor€for€this€cost.Ìà àThe€trial€court€held€that€the€McKinneys€were€liable€for€$1,214.11€in€additional€costsÏassociated€with€stair€parts€and€labor.€€The€McKinneys€argue€that€an€allowance€item€specified€ð ðfloorÏcoverings,ðð€and€this€did€not€include€the€handrails€and€the€spindles.€€Thus,€the€McKinneys€paid€forÏthe€costs€connected€with€the€steps€and€the€risers€but€not€for€the€handrails€and€spindles.Ìà àThe€evidence€indicates€that€Birdwell€did€not€satisfy€his€burden€of€proving€that€theÏMcKinneys€were€responsible€for€this€cost.€€A€plain€reading€of€the€term€ð ðfloor€coveringsðð€in€theÏallowance€provision€of€the€contract€cannot€be€construed€to€include€the€handrails€and€spindles.€€TheÏspecifications€call€for€the€installation€of€these€handrails.€€Furthermore,€the€record€does€notÏdemonstrate€that€the€McKinneys€demanded€an€upgrade€from€the€specifications€set€forth€in€theÏcontract.€€Therefore,€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€Birdwell€$1,214.11€for€these€costs.Ìà àThe€trial€court€held€that€the€McKinneys€owed€Birdwell€$436.00€for€upgrading€theÏinsulation€in€the€walls€of€the€home.€€€It€is€undisputed€that€the€specifications€called€for€R„18Ïinsulation.€€When€Bradley€McKinney€noticed€that€the€sub„contractor€was€installing€R„13Íinsulation,€he€demanded€that€it€be€removed€and€replaced€with€R„18€insulation.€€Birdwell€testifiedÏthat€he€had€intended€to€achieve€R„18€insulation€by€installing€an€R„5€wallboard,€along€with€the€R„13Ïinsulation.€€As€a€result€of€McKinneyððs€actions,€the€house€now€has€an€insulation€class€of€R„20.Ìà àThe€trial€court€found€that€the€McKinneys€unilaterally€modified€the€contract€and,€therefore,Ïwere€liable€for€these€costs.€€In€addition€to€arguing€that€the€contract€can€not€be€orally€modified,€theÏMcKinneys€contend€that€a€strict€reading€of€the€specifications€demands€that€R„18€insulation€be€used.€ÏBradley€McKinney€also€testified€that€he€was€unaware€that€Birdwell€intended€to€use€R„5€wallboard.Ìà àThe€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€the€trial€courtððs€determination€that€the€McKinneysÏunilaterally€modified€the€contract.€€Therefore,€Birdwell€€was€properly€awarded€$436.00€for€thisÏupgrade.€€The€trial€court€is€affirmed€on€this€issue.€€€Ìà àThe€evidence€also€preponderates€in€favor€of€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€McKinneyÏmodified€the€contract€by€seeking€the€installment€of€garage€door€openers€and€additional€framing€forÏoverhangs€and€the€extension€of€the€water€line.€€Thus,€the€trial€court€properly€awarded€BirdwellÏ$268.00€for€the€openers,€$461.00€for€the€framing,€and€$66.00€for€the€water€line€extension.Ìà àThe€McKinneys€also€challenge€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€award€them€damages€for€certainÏalleged€deviations€from€the€contract€by€Birdwell.€€The€McKinneys€contend€that€the€contract€callsÏfor€an€attic€floor€covering€1300€square€feet.€€Birdwell€constructed€an€attic€floor€covering€96€squareÏfeet.€€The€trial€court€found€that€the€McKinneys€had€not€proven€that€Birdwell€breached€the€contractÏin€this€€respect,€because€the€contract€was€unclear€on€this€point.€Ìà àThe€McKinneys€claim€that€in€the€ð ðsubflooringðð€section€of€the€specifications,€ð ðatticðð€isÏchecked,€followed€by€the€phrase,€ð ðper€plan.ðð€€The€McKinneys€assert€that€the€plans€indicate€that€2Ïby€8€framing€is€to€be€used€to€install€a€complete€attic€floor.€€Instead,€most€of€the€attic€floor€consistsÏof€2€by€6s.€€€The€McKinneys€argue€that€the€second€floor€ceiling€calls€for€2€by€8s€and€2€by€10s€andÏthat€this€demonstrates€that€the€attic€floor€should€not€consist€of€2€by€6s.€€The€McKinneys€seeksÏrepair€costs€of€$3500.00.Ìà àBirdwell€counters€that€the€contract€is€unclear€and€that€the€amount€of€€attic€floor€installed€wasÍcustomary.€€Furthermore,€the€architect€for€the€project,€Steve€Sloan,€testified€that€the€plans€wereÏunclear€and€that€he€assumed€that€McKinney€and€Birdwell€would€reach€an€agreement€on€this€issue.€Ïà àAfter€careful€examination€of€the€plans€and€the€transcript,€we€find€that€the€preponderance€ofÏthe€evidence€does€not€weigh€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€contract€does€not€clearlyÏrequire€the€framing€and€attic€floor€asserted€by€the€McKinneys.€€Thus,€the€McKinneys€have€notÏcarried€their€burden€of€showing€that€the€plans€called€for€an€attic€floor€consisting€of€1300€squareÏfeet,€and€the€finding€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€on€this€issue.Ìà àThe€McKinneys€also€challenge€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Birdwell€did€not€breach€theÏcontract€by€installing€a€shower€stall€opening€only€22€inches€wide.€€The€trial€court€held€that€theÏplans€did€not€specify€an€exact€dimension€and€that€Birdwell€performed€ð ðthe€best€he€could€under€theÏcircumstances.ððÌà àThe€McKinneys€note€that€Birdwell€conceded€that€the€plans€are€to€scale.€€Furthermore,ÏBirdwell€conceded€that€ð ð[i]t€looks€like€it€probably€is€36€inches€on€there.ðð€€Nevertheless,€BirdwellÏconstructed€the€opening€only€22€inches€wide.€€The€McKinneys€seek€damages€in€the€amount€ofÏ$900.00,€based€on€the€testimony€of€their€expert.Ìà àThe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€indicates€that€the€McKinneys€have€shown€that€BirdwellÏbreached€the€contract€by€constructing€the€opening€only€22€inches€wide.€€The€testimony€of€theÏMcKinneysðð€expert€is€the€only€proof€in€the€record€pertaining€to€damages€in€this€regard.€€Therefore,Ïthe€trial€courtððs€finding€is€reversed€and€the€McKinneys€are€credited€with€$900.00€on€this€item.Ìà àThe€McKinneys€further€claim€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€finding€that€Birdwell€hadÏbreached€the€contract€by€failing€to€gravel€the€driveway€all€the€way€to€the€road.€€The€county€road€isÏ2/10€of€a€mile€away€from€the€house.€€Birdwell€graveled€the€driveway€up€to€a€lane€leading€to€theÏcounty€road.€€The€trial€court€held€that€the€contract€is€unclear€and€that,€therefore,€Birdwell€is€notÏliable.Ìà àThe€McKinneys€maintain€that€Birdwellððs€expert€conceded€at€trial€that€it€is€customary€toÏgravel€a€driveway€all€the€way€to€the€road.€€The€McKinneys€also€claim€that€Birdwell€admitted€at€trialÍthat€he€did€not€gravel€the€ð ðentire€driveway.ðð€€The€McKinneys€seek€a€recovery€of€$2,191.33€for€theÏcost€of€completing€the€graveling€of€the€driveway€all€the€way€to€the€road.Ìà àBirdwell€counters€that€the€contract€is€silent€on€this€issue.€€Furthermore,€BirdwellÏemphasizes€that€since€the€road€is€2/10€of€a€mile€away,€graveling€up€to€the€lane€is€all€that€could€beÏð ðreasonably€contemplated.ððÌà àThe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€indicates€that€the€McKinneys€failed€to€prove€that€theÏcontract€obligated€Birdwell€to€gravel€the€driveway€all€the€way€to€the€road.€€Taken€in€context,ÏBirdwell€admits€in€his€testimony€that€he€did€not€gravel€the€entire€amount€sought€by€the€McKinneys,Ïbut€he€does€not€admit€breaching€the€contract.€€The€trial€courtððs€finding€on€this€issue€is€affirmed.Ìà àThe€McKinneys€next€argue€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€award€them€damages€forÏBirdwellððs€failure€to€install€two€basement€windows.€€The€plans€call€for€two€ð ðwindows€per€grade.ðð€ÏWindows€could€not€be€installed,€because€they€would€be€below€the€grade€of€the€yard.€€TheÏMcKinneys€contend€that€Birdwell€could€have€installed€window€wells,€which€could€be€belowÏgrade.× ƒ/ ××  ×€€The€McKinneys€assert€that€the€windows€would€not€be€below€grade€in€the€first€place€hadÏBirdwell€not€constructed€the€basement€ceiling€shorter€than€the€height€specified€in€the€€contract.€ÏAlternatively,€the€McKinneys€argue€that€they€should€be€credited€for€the€costs€of€labor€and€materialsÏnecessary€for€the€installation€of€these€windows€so€that€Birdwell€does€not€receive€a€windfall.Ìà àThe€trial€court€held€that€Birdwell€did€not€breach€this€provision€of€the€contract,€since€it€didÏnot€provide€for€window€wells.€€The€evidence€supports€this€finding€of€the€trial€court.€€The€plansÏspecifically€state€ð ðwindows€òòper€gradeóóðð€(emphasis€added).€€Although€it€is€undisputed€that€theÏbasement€ceiling€height€was€shorter€than€that€specified€in€the€agreement,€the€evidence€suggests€thatÏthe€windows€would€still€be€below€grade€if€the€basement€ceiling€height€had€been€in€strict€conformityÏwith€the€contract.€€The€McKinneysðð€alternative€argument€has€no€merit.€€It€is€inevitable€that€bothÍparties€assume€certain€risks€when€a€construction€contract€is€executed.€€In€this€case,€the€McKinneysÏassumed€the€risk€that€the€windows€might€not€be€able€to€be€constructed€per€grade.Ìà àThe€McKinneys€next€assert€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€finding€that€Birdwell€breachedÏthe€agreement€by€not€applying€a€third€coat€of€paint€to€all€rooms€in€the€house.€€The€trial€court€heldÏthat€the€McKinneys€were€only€able€to€prove€that€a€third€coat€was€not€applied€in€two€rooms.€ÏTherefore,€the€trial€court€awarded€the€McKinneys€damages€of€$107.01€for€the€cost€of€paintingÏthese€two€rooms.Ìà àThe€McKinneys€argue€that€Birdwell€testified€that,€although€he€thought€that€three€coats€hadÏbeen€applied€throughout€the€house€(except€for€two€rooms),€the€painting€sub„contractor,€TimÏLassiter€(ð ðLassiterðð),€would€have€superior€knowledge.€€Although€Lassiter€did€not€testify,€theÏMcKinneys€proffered€a€receipt€from€Lassiter€stating€as€follows:€ð ðLassiter€Painting€paintedÏMcKinney€House€on€Porter€Road:€Two€coats€of€paint€on€walls€and€ceiling,€three€coats€of€paint€onÏtrim.ðð€€Bradley€McKinney€testified€that€Lassiter€told€him€that€Birdwell€did€not€ask€him€to€bid€forÏthree€coats€of€paint€in€the€house.× ƒ0 ××  ×€€The€McKinneys€seek€an€award€of€$3,850.00€based€on€theirÏexpertððs€estimate€of€the€cost€of€adding€a€third€coat€to€the€entire€house€or,€alternatively,€an€award€ofÏ$1,000.00€based€on€an€estimate€made€by€Lassiter.Ìà àBirdwell€responds€by€emphasizing€that€Birdwell€testified€that€he€believed€that€three€coatsÏhad€been€painted€in€every€room€but€two.€€Birdwell€also€testified€that€the€McKinneys€consented€toÏthe€amount€of€work€that€was€performed.× ƒ1 ××  ×Ìà àWe€are€unable€to€hold€that€the€evidence€preponderates€against€the€trial€courtððs€holdingÏconcerning€this€factual€finding.€€This€is€an€issue€that€involves€the€credibility€of€witnesses.€€The€trialÍjudge€is€in€a€much€better€position€to€assess€the€credibility€of€witnesses€and,€thus,€its€findings€areÏentitled€to€ð ðconsiderable€deference.ðð€€ò òòòTenn„Tex€Properties€v.€Brownell„Electro,€Inc.,ó óóó€778ÏS.W.2d€423,€425„26€(Tenn.€1989).€€Therefore,€the€trial€courtððs€awarding€of€$107.01€for€the€twoÏunpainted€rooms€is€affirmed.Ìà àThe€McKinneys€next€contend€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€failing€to€credit€them€for€havingÏpaid€Birdwell€twice€for€bathroom€fixtures.€€In€the€ð ðallowanceðð€provision€of€the€contract,€the€partiesÏlisted€ð ðCabinets€w/€corian€topsðð€with€a€cost€not€expected€to€exceed€$9746.00.€€The€McKinneysÏtendered€Birdwell€$9864.00€as€reimbursement€for€this€allowance.€The€McKinneys€then€discovered€Ïthat€this€expense€was€used€to€pay€for€the€installation€of€kitchen€cabinets€as€well€as€a€jacuzzi€tub,€aÏmarble€shower,€and€bathroom€vanities.Ìà àThe€McKinneys€dispute€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€the€allowance€for€ð ðcabinets€w/€corianÏtopsðð€includes€the€tub,€shower,€and€vanities.€€According€to€the€McKinneys,€they€effectively€wereÏforced€to€pay€Birdwell€twice€for€these€fixtures:€as€part€of€the€basic€contract€price€and€as€part€of€anÏallowance€item.€€The€McKinneys€allege€that€they€should€be€credited€$4,200.00,€which€is€the€sub„contractorððs€estimation€of€the€value€of€the€tub,€shower,€and€vanities.Ìà à€€The€evidence€indicates€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€crediting€the€McKinneys€for€thisÏexpense.€€A€plain€reading€of€the€term,€ð ðcabinets€w/€corian€tops,ðð€would€not€include€the€tub,Ïshower,€and€bathroom€vanities.€€These€fixtures€are€called€for€in€the€specifications€and€are€part€ofÏthe€basic€contract€price.€€Therefore,€the€McKinneys€should€be€awarded€$4,200.00€for€thisÏexpense.Ìà àThe€McKinneys€also€claim€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€awarding€them€expensesÏassociated€with€installing€shelving.€€ð ðShelvingðð€is€listed€as€an€allowance€item€at€a€cost€not€to€exceedÏ$400.00.€€The€McKinneys€argue€that€ð ðinstallationðð€is€not€listed€as€part€of€the€shelving€allowance.€ÏBecause€other€allowance€items€include€ð ðinstallation,ðð€the€McKinneys€contend€that€the€installation€ofÏthe€shelving€is€not€an€allowance€and,€thus,€is€part€of€the€contract€price.€€The€McKinneys€alsoÏmaintain€that€the€other€allowance€items€that€did€not€state€ð ðinstallationðð€were€performed€by€BirdwellÍas€part€of€the€contract€price.€€The€McKinneys€seek€a€recovery€of€$211.85€for€the€cost€of€installingÏthese€shelves.Ìà àA€review€of€the€evidence€indicates€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€including€this€installationÏcost€as€part€of€the€contract€price.€€From€the€terms€of€the€contract,€the€installation€of€the€shelves€wasÏdistinct€from€the€allowance€for€the€shelves€themselves.€€Therefore,€the€McKinneys€are€entitled€to€aÏcredit€of€$211.85.Ìà àThe€McKinneys€next€allege€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€refusing€to€award€them€forÏnumerous€construction€defects€that€Birdwell€acknowledged€at€trial.€€Such€defects€include€doors€notÏfastening€properly,€lack€of€weatherstripping,€dents€on€doors,€a€handrail€pulled€away€from€the€wall,Ïand€the€failure€to€install€an€oval€window€in€the€front€of€the€house.€€Birdwell€testified€that€theseÏdefects€could€be€repaired€at€a€cost€of€between€$1,000.00€to€$1,500.00.€€Birdwellððs€expertÏestimated€the€cost€of€repair€at€$2,000.00.€€At€a€minimum,€the€McKinneys€seek€compensation€ofÏ$2000.00€for€these€defects.Ìà àThe€trial€court€refused€to€compensate€the€McKinneys€for€these€repairs€on€the€grounds€thatÏeither€they€were€not€Birdwellððs€responsibility€or€that€ð ðBirdwellððs€final€completion€of€minor€repairsÏand€adjustments€were€delayed€and€frustrated€by€McKinney.ðð€€The€evidence€preponderates€in€favorÏof€this€finding.€€The€parties€dispute€whether€some€of€these€defects€existed€when€Birdwell€left.€€TheÏparties€also€dispute€whether€Birdwell€was€given€the€opportunity€to€cure€the€defects€after€theÏMcKinneys€moved€into€the€house€early× ƒ2 ××  ×€and€changed€the€locks€on€the€house.€€Such€questionsÏrelate€to€credibility€and€we€defer€to€the€trial€judgeððs€credibility€determination.€€ò òòòTenn„Tex,ó óóó€778ÏS.W.2d€at€425„26.€€Furthermore,€the€evidence€indicates€that€the€McKinneys€orally€consented€toÏreplacing€the€oval€window€with€a€vent,€so€that€the€gable€on€the€roof€would€not€become€overheated.Ìà àThe€McKinneys€argue€that€they€incurred€a€water€bill€amounting€to€$524.75€resulting€fromÍthe€rupture€of€the€water€line€by€one€of€Birdwellððs€sub„contractors.€€The€evidence€supports€the€trialÏcourtððs€finding€that€the€McKinneys€failed€to€prove€that€Birdwell€or€his€sub„contractors€wereÏresponsible€for€the€rupture.€€The€trial€court€is€affirmed€on€this€issue.Ìà àThe€McKinneys€seek€recovery€of€$350.00€for€the€repair€of€€alleged€defects€related€toÏelectrical€items€caused€by€Birdwellððs€alleged€failure€to€conform€to€the€plans€and€make€properÏinstallation.€€The€evidence€does€not€preponderate€against€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Birdwell€isÏnot€responsible€for€these€alleged€defects.€€Testimony€offered€by€Birdwell€disputes€whether€theÏplans€called€for€the€installation€of€certain€of€these€items.€€Furthermore,€the€trial€court€found€that€theÏMcKinneys€had€delayed€and€frustrated€Birdwellððs€efforts€to€cure€all€the€minor€defects.Ìà àIn€addition,€the€McKinneys€claim€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€not€awarding€them€aÏcontractorððs€profit€for€the€repair€costs€of€breaches€of€the€contract€caused€by€Birdwell.€€TheÏMcKinneysðð€expert€calculated€this€as€twenty€percent€above€the€ordinary€cost.€€The€McKinneysÏcontemplate€a€general€contractor€supervising€the€sub„contractors€for€additional€repairs.€€In€light€ofÏthe€fact€that€only€a€few€repairs€need€to€be€made€as€a€result€of€breaches€committed€by€Birdwell,€itÏwould€be€unnecessary€to€hire€a€contractor€to€oversee€sub„contractors.€€Thus,€it€would€be€Çunreasonable€to€award€the€McKinneys€recovery€for€a€contractorððs€profit.€€The€trial€courtððs€decisionÏon€this€issue€is€affirmed.€Ìà àFinally,€the€McKinneys€challenge€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€award€them€attorneysðð€fees.× ƒ3 ××  ×€ÏThe€contract€provides€that€if€either€party€breaches€the€contract,€the€breaching€party€is€responsibleÏfor€attorneysðð€fees.€€Since€both€parties€breached€the€contract,€neither€is€entitled€to€attorneysðð€fees.Ìà àOn€appeal,€Birdwell€challenges€certain€findings€made€by€the€trial€court€that€BirdwellÏbreached€the€agreement.× ƒ4 ××  ×€€Birdwell€alleges€that€the€trial€court€erred€by€finding€that€BirdwellÏbreached€the€contract€by€not€applying€insulation€between€the€first€and€second€floors€of€the€home.€ÏThe€trial€court€awarded€the€McKinneys€$3,000.00€for€this€expense.€€Ìà àAlthough€Birdwell€admits€that€the€plans€called€for€the€insulation,€he€appears€to€claim€that€anÏoral€modification€occurred,€since€it€is€not€customary€to€install€insulation€between€those€floors€andÏbecause€the€McKinneys€did€not€voice€their€objection€to€Birdwellððs€failure€to€install€it.€€€€TheÏevidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Birdwell€breached€the€contract€by€not€installing€theÏinsulation.€€The€trial€courtððs€decision€on€this€issue€is€affirmed.Ìà àBirdwell€also€appears€to€contend€that€the€trial€court€erred€in€awarding€damages€ofÏ$5,050.00€for€repair€work€on€a€screened„in€deck.€€The€trial€court€found€that€Birdwell€installedÏwooden€posts€for€the€deck€instead€of€steel€posts€as€provided€for€in€the€contract.€€The€trial€court€alsoÏfound€that€Birdwell€suffered€damages€as€a€result€of€a€defective€roof€on€the€deck.Ìà àAlthough€Birdwell€admits€that€the€contract€calls€for€steel€posts,€he€argues€that€the€woodenÏposts€are€customary€and€McKinney€did€not€object€to€their€installation.€€Birdwell€also€alleges€thatÏMcKinney€did€not€timely€provide€notice€of€the€defective€roof.€€In€addition,€Birdwell€claims€thatÍrepair€work€performed€on€the€roof€is€excessive€and€not€provided€for€in€the€contract.Ìà àThe€evidence€preponderates€in€favor€of€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Birdwell€is€responsibleÏfor€these€damages.€€The€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€on€this€issue.Ìà àBirdwell€disputes€the€trial€courtððs€finding€that€he€breached€the€contract€by€constructing€theÏbasement€ceiling€lower€than€the€height€specified€in€the€contract.€€It€is€undisputed€that€the€contractÏprovides€that€the€basement€ceiling€is€to€measure€8'10".€€Birdwell€acknowledged€that€the€actualÏbasement€height€was€five€inches€shorter€on€one€end€and€eight€inches€shorter€on€the€other€end.€ÏBirdwell€claims€that,€before€the€cement€was€poured€to€make€the€floor,€he€marked€a€line€on€the€wallÏand€asked€Bradley€McKinney€if€the€height€was€suitable.€€Birdwell€testified€that€McKinney€saidÏð ðyes.ððÌà àBirdwell€maintains€further€that€the€McKinneys€waived€any€objections€to€the€height€by€notÏvoicing€their€opposition€earlier.€€Birdwell€noted€in€his€testimony€that€Bradley€McKinney€stoppedÏconstruction€to€voice€his€objection€on€numerous€occasions€throughout€the€construction€process.€ÏThus,€Birdwell€contends€that,€had€McKinney€objected,€he€would€have€stopped€construction€at€thisÏtime.€€Birdwell€also€maintains€that€once€the€ceiling€is€boxed€in,€it€will€be€able€to€satisfy€the€buildingÏinspectorððs€requirement€of€7'6".Ìà àBradley€McKinney€denied€having€the€conversation€with€Birdwell€in€which€he€purportedlyÏacceded€to€the€modification€of€the€height€of€the€basement.€€The€McKinneys€also€insist€that€timelyÏobjections€were€made€to€both€Birdwell€and€the€architect,€Steve€Sloan.€€The€McKinneys€offeredÏproof€by€their€expert€that€the€ceiling€could€not€be€completed€at€a€height€of€7'6",€as€required€by€theÏbuilding€inspector.Ìà àThe€trial€court€ruled€that€Birdwell€breached€the€contract€by€not€constructing€the€basement€inÏaccordance€with€the€agreement.€€It€found€that€Birdwell€did€not€prove€that€the€McKinneys€had€orallyÏmodified€the€contract.€€The€trial€court€awarded€the€McKinneys€$18,350.00,€the€value€of€repair€asÏdetermined€by€the€McKinneysðð€expert.Ìà àThe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€does€not€indicate€that€Birdwell€satisfied€his€burden€ofÍproving€that€the€McKinneys€orally€modified€this€provision.€€Again,€the€trial€judge€is€the€best€arbiterÏof€issues€concerning€credibility.€€ò òòòTenn„Tex,ó óóó€778€S.W.2d€at€425„26.€€The€decision€of€the€trialÏcourt€on€this€issue€is€affirmed.Ìà àBirdwell€also€contends€that€the€trial€court€improperly€awarded€damages€based€on€cost€ofÏrepair€instead€of€on€diminution€in€value.€€Birdwell€cites€ò òòòThomas€v.€Mardis,ó óóó€Greene€ChanceryÏC.A.€No.€106,€1987€WL€20189€(Tenn.€App.€Nov.€25,€1987),€for€the€proposition€that€ifÏconstruction€of€a€house€has€been€ð ðsubstantially€performedðð€and€repair€would€result€inÏð ðunreasonable€destruction,ðð€then€diminution€in€value€is€the€proper€approach.ÌÇà àThe€ò òòòThomasó óóó€case€cited€ò òòòEdenfield€v.€Woodlawn€Manor,€Inc.,ó óóó€62€Tenn.€App.€280,Ï462€S.W.2d€237€(1970).€€The€ò òòòEdenfieldó óóó€court,€quoting€from€Am.€Jur.€(2nd),€stated:ÌÓÓà8 àAs€a€general€rule,€the€measure€of€damages€is€the€cost€of€correcting€the€defects€orÏcompleting€the€omissions,€rather€than€the€difference€in€value€between€what€ought€toÏhave€been€done€in€the€performance€of€the€contract€and€what€has€been€done,€whereÏthe€correction€or€completion€would€not€involve€unreasonable€destruction€of€theÏwork€done€by€the€contractor€and€the€cost€thereof€would€not€be€grosslyÏdisproportionate€to€the€results€to€be€obtained.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€courtsÏgenerally€adhere€to€the€view€that€if€a€builder€or€contractor€has€not€fully€performedÏthe€terms€of€the€construction€agreement,€but€to€repair€the€defects€or€omissionsÏwould€require€a€substantial€tearing€down€and€rebuilding€of€the€structure,€theÏmeasure€of€damages€is€the€difference€in€value€between€the€work€if€it€had€beenÏperformed€in€accordance€with€the€contract€and€that€which€was€actually€done,€or€(asÏit€is€sometimes€said)€the€difference€between€the€value€of€the€defective€structure€ifÏproperly€completed.€€Despite€this€latter€rule,€however,€there€is€some€authority€to€theÏeffect€that€damages€for€a€contractorððs€breach€of€a€contract€to€construct€a€dwelling,Ïwhere€it€is€not€constructed€in€accordance€with€the€plans€and€specifications,€òòareóó€theÏamount€required€to€reconstruct€it€to€make€it€conform€to€such€plans€andÏspecifications,€rather€than€the€difference€in€loan€or€market€value€on€the€finishedÏdwelling,€since€unlike€a€commercial€structure,€a€dwelling€has€an€esthetic€value€andÏmust€be€constructed€as€the€owner€wants€it,€even€though€the€finished€dwelling€mayÏbe€just€as€good.Ìò òòòÌÓÓId.ó óóó,€62€Tenn.€App.€at€287„88,€462€S.W.2d€at€241€(quoting€Am.€Jur.€2d€ðð€79)€(emphasis€inÏoriginal).€€ò òòòEdenfieldó óóó€then€adopted€a€rule€in€which€a€distinction€is€made€between€the€standardÏapplied€for€commercial€buildings€and€the€standard€for€residential€dwellings.€€ò òòòId.ó óóó,€62€Tenn.€App.€atÏ289,€462€S.W.2d€at€241òòò ò€ó óóó(citing€ò òòòFox€v.€Webbó óóó,105€So.2d€75€(Ala.€1958)).€€The€court€noted€that,Ïð ðin€addition€to€aesthetic€tastes€of€the€owner€.€.€.€there€is€also€the€matter€of€the€ownerððs€comfort€andÏconvenience.ðð€€ò òòòId.ó óóó,€62€Tenn.€App.€at€289,€462€S.W.2dòòò ò€ó óóóat€242.€€Therefore,€the€court€held€that€theÏcost€of€repair€is€the€appropriate€measure€of€damages€for€a€residential€dwelling.€€ò òòòId.ó óóóÌà àApplying€this€standard€to€the€case€at€bar,€we€find€that€the€court€did€not€err€in€awardingÏdamages€based€on€the€cost€of€repair.€€In€light€of€Bradley€McKinneyððs€height,× ƒ5 ××  ×€it€is€understandableÍthat€a€few€inches€in€ceiling€height€would€be€of€importance.× ƒ6 ××  ×€€Furthermore,€the€couple€helpedÏdesign€the€room€in€order€to€accommodate€their€aesthetic€tastes.€€It€is€clear€that€they€would€beÏdetrimentally€affected€once€the€ceiling€is€boxed€in€to€accommodate€the€plumbing€and€once€lightÏfixtures€are€installed.Ìà àOn€appeal,€Birdwell€also€claims€that€it€was€inappropriate€for€the€trial€court€to€rely€on€theÏdamages€testimony€of€the€McKinneysðð€expert,€John€Ramsey€(ð ðRamseyðð).€€Birdwell€asserts€thatÏRamseyððs€estimates€are€based€on€homes€built€in€Brentwood,€Tennessee,€and€the€Belle€Meade€areaÏof€Nashville.€€According€to€Birdwell,€these€costs€are€much€higher€than€the€cost€of€construction€inÏRobertson€County.Ìà àBirdwell€failed€to€raise€an€objection€concerning€this€testimony€at€trial.€€Therefore,€BirdwellÏis€barred€from€asserting€this€defense€on€appeal.€€ò òòòPyleó óóó,€716€S.W.2d€at€936.Ìà àBirdwell€also€challenges€the€trial€courtððs€failure€to€award€him€$5,000.00€for€ð ðadditionalÏtime€spend€[sic]€and€delays€in€the€performance€of€the€Contract€caused€by€McKinneyððs€actions.ðð€ÏThe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€supports€the€trial€courtððs€refusal€to€award€these€damages.Ìà àIn€addition,€Birdwell€seeks€the€recovery€of€prejudgment€interest.€€Prejudgment€interest€wasÏnot€sought€in€the€Complaint.€€The€evidence€does€not€demonstrate€that€Birdwell€is€entitled€to€theseÏdamages.€€The€trial€court€is€affirmed€on€this€issue.Ìà àIn€sum,€the€trial€courtððs€computation€of€damages€of€$10,420.10€in€favor€of€Birdwell€isÏmodified€to€reflect€the€following€awards€credited€to€the€McKinneys:ÌÓÓà àStairs€material€and€laborà à$1,214.11Ìà àShower€stall€openingà àà à€€€€€900.00Ìà àBathroom€fixturesà àà à€€4,200.00Ìà àShelving€installationà àà à€òò€€€€211.85óóÌà àà àà àTotal€à àà à$6,525.96ÌÌÓÓIn€all€other€respects,€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed.€€Therefore,€the€trial€courtððs€award€ofÏ$10,420.10€to€Birdwell€is€modified€to€$3,894.14.ò òÌó óà àThe€decision€of€the€trial€court€is€affirmed€as€modified.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€equally€toÏAppellant€and€Appellee,€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àò òóóHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ÌóóDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌÌòòÌ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€J.ó ó€