WPC ŝjr@_rFO'g̦%Ax1O]H֡`n`ɭq(=ME+8!(.25WM6:BBpp>©LD\Hb1'gCKMEܙ 6 ŪjZGx9Uo/ XrP}U(5~R/޶o[U0U;HW` x9[65Ut^dPel@`''x/#2Yw!oL|.aD@jJ IE¸2kIr6+hh )5 +>)MS^Iy|Oq ;t ͙VEX{^ 4J,ZI?wVw9Wt̻ޮ̆ (T?_ah%%Tvk\_J"tQeB/?bF_Ց /Qh"Bϙb#\ % UN# 0q UN 0cG 1 z1  1u} 1 72y ^  }C wN4E mb 0 B 0# D3 D- 0K'' ASr 0 0D/ AsHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(;3$2#  0  .3  0  (EhCEKQW]cioAutoList2I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I. C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList1I.I.I.I.I.I.I.I. i)oY+s Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5j5+mT3|x U- -(|G2$ !.8BdXXd8         0   d(|3L$ !.8BdXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3L$ !.8BdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Bdd8     _  B8IXXdd8  @ W$BINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#BW$ #Ԉ &   JULY9,2001Session L XIXB #BXXI#PRECISIONMECHANICALCONTRACTORS,etal.v. J METROPOLITANDEVELOPMENTANDHOUSINGAGENCYXIXB   ^ @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  ^ @@No.981433III;TheHonorableEllen_Hobbs_ԀLyle,Chancellor  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200002117_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober25,_2001_   AV) ` dE<` A      XIXXXIThisappealarisesfromadisputeovertwoconstructioncontracts.Onecontractinvolvedthe  replacementoffurnacesatthePrestonTaylorHomesHousingProject,andtheothercontractwas x forundergroundutilitiesandsiteworkattheTony_Sudekum_ԀHomesHousingProject.Plaintifffiled d suitseekingadditionalcompensationbaseduponitsperformanceofthetwocontractswith P Defendant.ThetrialcourtgrantedDefendantsmotionforaninvoluntarydismissalaftertheclose < ofPlaintiffsproof.Forthefollowingreasons,weaffirm. (x #XIXXXI6##BXXI#XIXB* Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  <   #BXIV#XIX.BAlanE.Highers,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidR.Farmer,J.,andHolly  KirbyLillard,J.,joined.  DonL.Smith,KennethS._Schrupp_,Nashville,forAppellant  H.Frederick_Humbracht_,Jr.,RussellB.Morgan,Nashville,forAppellee `!   OPINION #BXXI$ #XIXB 8#" #BXXI$ #XIXB  XIXXXI@FactsandProceduralHistory %` $    TheAppellant,PrecisionMechanicalContractors(Precision),isaTennesseecontractor.The &8"& Appellee,MetropolitanDevelopmentandHousingAgency(_MDHA_),isagovernmentalhousing '$#' agency.Thisdisputearisesfromtwoseparatecontractsforconstructionenteredintobytheparties: ($( thePrestonTaylorHomesproject,andtheTony_Sudekum_ԀHomesproject.Precisionfiledsuit )$) against_MDHA_,allegingbreachofcontractandunjustenrichment. *%*  @* \-(- @ ThePrestonTaylorHomesContract     Precisionand_MDHA_ԀenteredintothePrestonTaylorcontractonSeptember12,1995.The  contractcalledforPrecisionto furnishallsupervision,labor,materials,equipmentandservices, t includingrelatedaccessoriesandspecialtiesforreplacementofgasfurnaces....Specifically,the ` contractcalledforthereplacementoffurnacesinapproximately550unitsatthePrestonTaylor L  HousingProject,includingthenecessaryventing,piping,etc.Thecontractamountwas 8  $1,208,580.00,andthecontractcalledforcompletionwithin240days. $ t   Oncetheworkbegan,variousissuesarose.First,Precisionhadplannedtouseasubstitute  L  furnace.Therewassomecontroversysurroundingthemanufacturersrecommendationsthatthe  8  substituted_Rheem_Ԁfurnaceshouldbeinstalledonadedicatedcircuit.Also,issuesaroseoverthe $  manufacturersrecommendationsthatacondensatelineshouldbeinstalledtoremovethecondensate   thatwouldform.Furthermore,inthefivebedroomunits,itwasdeterminedthatoneunitwas   inadequate,andthatanadditionalunitwouldbenecessary.Finally,Precisionclaimsthat_MDHA_   repeatedlyrefusedrequestsforfinalinspections.Moreover,Precisionclaimsthatthesedelays   causedthemdamages.Followingfinalpaymentontheproject,Precisionfiledsuitforallegedextra p workandcostsassociatedwithdelays. \   Specifically,PrecisionallegesthefollowingdamagesonthePrestonTaylorProject: 4 $73,084.78asadirectcostfordelays;$136,338.25fordisputedchangeorders;and$270,310.80in  p unabsorbedhomeofficeoverheaddamages.   \  @QQTheTony_Sudekum_ԀProject 4    Precisionand_MDHA_ԀenteredintothecontractfortheTony_Sudekum_ԀprojectonAugust29,   1995.ThecontractcalledforPrecisionto furnishallsupervision,labor,materials,equipmentand  services,includingallrelatedaccessoriesandspecialtiesforreplacingwaterandgaslinesand  sanitaryseweragesystem....Thecontractamountwas$1,708,741.00.Precisionclaimsthatits  bidwasalumpsumbidandwasnottiedtothespecificlineitemscontainedinthebidpackage. l   Anissuearoseoverthelineitem UnclassifiedExcavation.Precisionclaimedthatthey D! wereentitledtoadditionalmoniesforunclassifiedexcavation._MDHA_Ԁdisagreed,takingtheposition 0"  thattheexcavationPrecisionwasseekingextrapaymentsforwasincludedwithinthespecific #l! categoriesofwork. $X"   OtherissuesalsoaroseregardingtheTony_Sudekum_Ԁproject.Specifically,therewas %0!$ controversysurroundingaproposedroadextensionthat_MDHA_Ԁdeletedfromthecontractbecause &"% theroadextensionwasdeletedfromthescopeofthework.Precisionalsoclaimsadditional '#& damagesfromdelaysitattributesto_MDHA_. (#'   Specifically,PrecisionallegedthefollowingdamagesontheTony_Sudekum_ԀProject: |*%) $36,500.00that_MDHA_Ԁwithheldasliquidateddamages;$677,206.25indisputedquantity h+&* calculationsandunapprovedchangeorders;and$464,491.56inunabsorbedhomeofficeoverhead  damages.    ThecasewastriedinDavidsonCountyChanceryCourtfromJuly10throughJuly13,2000. t AtthecloseofPrecisionsproof,_MDHA_ԀmovedforaninvoluntarydismissalpursuanttoRule41.02 ` oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.Thetrialjudgegranted_MDHA_smotionforan L  involuntarydismissalastoallofPrecisionsclaimsexceptPrecisionsclaimstorecoverliquidated 8  damagesassessedby_MDHA_ԀontheTony_Sudekum_Ԁproject.Afterthecourtmadeitsruling, $ t Precisionthen_nonsuited_Ԁitsclaimforliquidateddamagesassessedby_MDHA_ԀontheTony_Sudekum_  ` project.ThecourtentereditsfinalorderonAugust3,2000,andPrecisiontimelyfiledanoticeof  L  appeal.  8    Precisionappealsthedecisionfromthecourtbelowandpresentsthefollowingissuesforour $  review:    (5h83 "3"  30%25h  I  .3  0    WhetherthetrialcourterredinrulingthatPrecisionhadfailedtoprovidesufficientnotice   ofitsclaimsto_MDHA_.30%]%݌ (#(# Ќ  "3"  3&25h  II  .3  0    WhetherthetrialcourterredinrulingthatPrecisionhadfailedtopresentproofofdamages p resultingfromdelaysontheprojects.3&&݌\(#(# Ќ  "3"  3(25h  III  .3  0    WhetherthetrialcourterredinrulingthatPrecisionhadfailedtopresentproofoftheactual H valueoftheworkperformed.3(1(݌4(#(# Ќ  "3"  3`)25h  IV  .3  0    WhetherthetrialcourterredindenyingPrecisionrecoveryonitsclaims.3`))݌ p(#(# Ќ  _MDHA_Ԁpresentsthefollowingadditionalissueforourreview:  \ ! ! (Eh88 "3"  3+2Eh  I  .3  0    Whetherthetrialcourterredinholdingthatthe_Eichleay_formulawasanappropriatemethod H ofcalculatingPrecisionsclaimeddamages.3++݌4(#(# Ќ    StandardofReview      0  Inpertinentpart,Rule41.02(2)oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureprovides:(#(#   Aftertheplaintiff,inanactiontriedbythecourtwithoutajury,has l completedthepresentationofplaintiff'sevidence,thedefendant, X  withoutwaivingtherighttoofferevidenceintheeventthemotionis D! notgranted,maymovefordismissalonthegroundthatuponthefacts 0"  andthelawtheplaintiffhasshownnorighttorelief. #l!  - -Ӏ $X" Whensuchamotionismade,thetrialcourtmustimpartiallyweighandevaluatetheevidencejust $D # asthoughitweremakingfindingsoffactandconclusionsoflawafterpresentationofallthe %0!$ evidence.SeeAtkinsv.Kirkpatrick,823S.W.2d547,552(Tenn.Ct.App.1991).Iftheplaintiff's &"% casehasnotbeenestablishedbyapreponderanceoftheevidence,thecaseshouldbedismissedif, '#& onthefactsfoundintheapplicablelaw,theplaintiffhasshownnorighttorelief.Seeid.(citingCity (#' ofColumbiav._C.F.W._ԀConstr.Co.,557S.W.2d734(Tenn.1977)).Ourreviewofadismissalunder )$( Rule41.02(2)oftheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedureiscontrolledbyRule13(d)ofthe |*%) TennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure.Thefindingsoffactbythetrialcourtingrantingsucha h+&* motionareaccompaniedbyapresumptionofcorrectnessand,unlessthepreponderanceofthe  evidenceisotherwise,thosefindingsmustbeaffirmed.SeeCollegeGroveWater_Util_.Dist.v.  _Bellenfant_,670S.W.2d229(Tenn.Ct.App.1984);_Akbari_Ԁv.Horn,641S.W.2d506,508(Tenn.  Ct.App.1982). t    @ LawandAnalysis L       `     h      p @__ThePrestonTaylorProject $ t      WewilladdressPrecisionsissuesastheyariseinthetrialjudgesfindingsoffactand  L  conclusionsoflaw.AfterPrecisionselectedanalternativefurnace,itwassubsequentlydiscovered  8  thatthebuildingcoderegulationsrequiredaseparatedrainlineforthefurnaceunitscondensate. $  Precisionsubmittedarequestforachangeorderto_MDHA_,butthechangeorderwasdenied.     Wenotethatthecontractrequiredthattheinstallationbeperformedaccordingtothe   manufacturersspecifications.Itisundisputedthatthespecificationsforthealternativefurnace   submittedbyPrecisionrequiredthatacondensatelinebeinstalled.Attrial,Mr.Anderson,whois p thegeneralmanagingmemberofPrecision,testifiedthathedidnotreadtheproductliteratureto \ determineifthealternative_Rheem_Ԁunitrequiredacondensateline.Mr.Andersonalso H acknowledgedthatthecontractrequiredPrecisiontoinstalltheunitsinaccordancewiththe 4 manufacturersrecommendations.  p   Inrulingonthecondensateissue,thetrialjudgefoundthefollowing: H   Astoitemone,thecondensatelineonthe_Rheem_Ԁunit,thecourt   determinesthattheplaintiffsdidnotperformtherequirementsofthe   contractsoastobeentitledtorecoveryonthisclaim.Specifically,  thecourtfindsthattheplaintiffshavenotcarriedtheirburdenof  prooftoshowthattheyperformedtherequirementsofArticle29(e)  and(f)oftheGeneralConditionstoqualifyforanadjustment. l   Section29(e)ofthecontractstatesinrelevantpartthat: D! __  TheContractormustassertitsrighttoanadjustmentunderthisclause 0"  within30daysafter(1)receiptofawrittenchangeorderunder #l! paragraph(a)ofthisclause,or(2)thefurnishingofawrittennotice $X" underparagraph(b)ofthisclause,bysubmittingawrittenstatement $D # describingthegeneralnatureandtheamountoftheproposal...No %0!$ proposalbytheContractorforanequitableadjustmentshallbe &"% allowedifassertedafterfinalpaymentunderthiscontract. '#& e  Duetotheforegoingcontractlanguageandafterareviewoftherecord,weagreewiththetrialcourt )$( thatPrecisiondidnotcomplywiththerequirementsofthecontract.Therefore,wefindthatthisissue |*%) iswithoutmerit. h+&* Ї  Thenextissueinvolvesthetwobedroomunits.Originally,thedesigncalledfortheunitsto  beventedsothatthepipewouldbesnugagainsttheceiling.However,thebuildingcodesrequired  adifferentmethodofventing._MDHA_ԀinstructedPrecisionnottoproceedwiththeinstallationinthe  twobedroomunitsuntil_MDHA_Ԁcoulddeterminetheappropriateinstallationmethod.Precision t allegesthatthisactionby_MDHA_Ԁcausedthemdelays,whichalsocausedthemdamages. `   Inrulingonthisissue,thetrialcourtstatedthefollowing: L    [_T]he_Ԁtrapcreatedbythepipedroppingunderthebeaminthetwo $ t bedroomunits,theCourtdeterminesthatthereisnotproofbythe  ` plaintiffsof[the]factofdamages.Theplaintiffshavenotcarriedtheir  L  burdenofprooftodemonstratetheexistenceorfactofdamagecaused  8  byallegeddelays.Forexample,therewasnoproofthattheplaintiffs $  hadtostopworkorweresecludedfromotherjobs.TheCourt   concludesthattherewasinadequateproofthereexistedanydamageto   theplaintiffsasaresultofthedelay.     Afterathoroughreviewoftherecord,weagreewiththetrialcourtthatPrecisionfailedtocarryits p burdenregardingdamagescausedbythedelay.Precisiondidnotshowthatcrewswereidleasa \ resultofthedelays,nordidPrecisionprovethattheysufferedincreasedcosts.Accordingly,thisissue H iswithoutmerit. 4   Next,weturntothededicatedcircuitissue.AsPrecisionwasbeginningitsworkreplacing  \ thefurnaces,Precisionwasinstructedthatthenewfurnaceshadtobeinstalledondedicatedcircuits H inordertocomplywiththeCode.Precisioncompliedandinstalledthefurnacesondedicatedcircuits. 4 Precisionthensubmittedchangeordersto_MDHA_,whichwererejected.Onceagain,wenotethat   Mr.AndersontestifiedattrialthatPrecisionwasrequiredunderthecontracttocomplywiththe   manufacturersrecommendations.Also,Mr.Andersonadmittedthatthe_Rheem_Ԁunitspecifications  statethatitistobeinstalledonadedicatedcircuit.Inrulingonthisissue,thetrialjudgestatedthe  following:    [_t]he_ԀCourtdeterminesthatthisisasituationwheretherewasa X  specificationfromthemanufacturer,that...specificationrequiredthe D! contractortobeawareofthat.Andsoanycostassociatedwith 0"  installingthededicatedcircuitaccordingtothemanufacturers #l! specificationsispartofthecontract,andthecontractorisboundby $X" that. $D # __  AfteracarefulreviewofMr.Andersonstestimonyandtherecord,weagreewiththetrialcourt. &"% Therefore,thisissueiswithoutmerit. '#&   Next,weaddresstheinspectionissue.AsPrecisionwouldfinishitsworkonunitsatPreston )$( Taylor,itwouldrequestthat_MDHA_Ԁinspectthoseunitstodetermineany_punchlist_Ԁitemsthatwould |*%) needtobeaddressedpriortofinalacceptance.Precisionallegesthat_MDHA_Ԁrepeatedlyrefused h+&* requestsforinspections,andinsomecases,Precisionallegesthat_MDHA_Ԁwouldnotinspectunits  untilseveralmonthsafterPrecisionhadcompleteditsworkontheunit._MDHA_Ԁcountersbyarguing  thatPrecisiondidnotpresentanyevidenceofincreasedcostsofperformingtheworkasaresultof  theallegeddelays.Inrulingonthisissue,thetrialjudgestatedthefollowing: t   Astoitemnumberfour,onthePrestonTaylorProject,thisinvolves L  whetherMr.Morrowdidntperforminspectionsalongsidethework 8  orifhehadapunchlistthatjustcontainedtrivialitems.TheCourt $ t determinesagainthatthereisnoproofoffactofdamages.The  ` plaintiffshaventcarriedtheirburdenofprooftodemonstratethe  L  existenceorfactofdamagecausedbyallegeddelays.Sotheir  8  recoveryisdeniedbecausetheresnofactorlawbasisforit. $    WenotethatPrecisionhasfailedtopointustoanyevidenceintherecordwhereitsdelaydamages   arequantifiedbycompetentproof.Inaddition,ourownreviewoftherecordfailstorevealanyproof   ofdamagescausedbytheallegeddelay.Asaresult,wefindnoerrorwiththetrialcourtsrulingon   thisissue. p   Next,weturntotheissueregardingthefivebedroomapartmentsrequiringanextrafurnace H ineachunit.Precisionclaimsthattheyweredelayedduetohavingtoinstallanextraunit.Thetrial 4 courtheldthat:  p   Astoitemfive,thefivebedroomapartmentsrequiringmoreunits,the H Courtdeniesrecoveryonthisclaimbecausetheplaintiffsdidnot 4 performtherequirementsofthecontracttoentitlethemtorecovery.   Specifically,thefivebedroomunitsarecoveredbyChangeOrder   numberoneandtheplaintiffsfailedtofollowtheproceduresoutlined  underArticle29soastoqualifyforadditionalcostsdueforthose  changesoronthefivebedroomunits.    WenotethatchangeordernumberonegrantedPrecisionextracompensationandanadditionalone X  hundreddaystoperformthecontract.Article29(e)ofthecontractthatgovernedthisprojectstates D! thefollowing: 0"    TheContractormustassertitsrighttoanadjustmentunderthisclause $X" within30daysafter(1)receiptofawrittenchangeorderunder $D # paragraph(a)ofthisclause,or(2)thefurnishingofawrittennotice %0!$ underparagraph(b)ofthisclause,bysubmittingawrittenstatement &"% describingthegeneralnatureandtheamountoftheproposal.Ifthe '#& factsjustifyit,theContractingOfficermayextendtheperiodfor (#' submission.Theproposalmaybeincludedinthenoticerequired )$(  underparagraph(b)above. NoproposalbytheContractorforan |*%) equitableadjustmentshallbeallowedifassertedafterfinal  paymentunderthiscontract.     (emphasisadded).Afterareviewoftherecord,itisevidentthatPrecisiondidnotcomplywiththe t aforementionedcontractlanguage.Therefore,weagreewiththetrialcourtthatPrecisionisnot ` entitledtorecoveryonthisissue.  L  @++TheTony_Sudekum_ԀProject $ t    ThefirstissuethatweaddressregardingtheTony_Sudekum_ԀProjectisPrecisionsclaimthat  L  itisentitledtoadditionalcompensationduetoalleged unclassifiedexcavation._MDHA_Ԁtookthe  8  positionthattheexcavationwasincludedinthespecificcategoriesofwork,suchassewerlines,water $  lines,andgaslines,andthatnoadditionalpaymentswerewarranted.Thus,_MDHA_Ԁrejected   Precisionsclaimsforalleged unclassifiedexcavation.  Inrulingonthisissue,thetrialcourtstated   thefollowing:     [_T]he_ԀCourtdetermineswithrespecttoitemonetheunclassified p excavation,thatthereisnoambiguity.Thecontractprovidesastothe \ specificitemsindispute,thatnoadditionalpaymentswillbemadefor H trenchingorbackfilling.TheCourtdeterminestheresnotan 4 ambiguity,thatthismorespecificlanguagecontrolsanygeneral  p languageinItem54.SotheCourtdeniesrecoveryforthatunclassified  \ excavationclaimonthatbasis. H     Itemnumber39oftheTony_Sudekum_Ԁcontractstatesthefollowing,inpertinentpart:    [_t]renching_,backfilling,shoringandbracingshallbeconsideredanddesignatedasanecessarypart   oftheconstructionandnoseparatepaymentwillbemadethereof.Itemnumber54ofthecontract  statesthatUnclassifiedExcavationincludes alllabor,materialsandequipmentnecessarytoperform  excavationasneededtoperformworkassetforthbythesedocuments...[_t]renching_,Backfilling  andCompactingforUtilities.Wenotethewellsettledruleofcontractinterpretationthatparticular l andspecificprovisionsofacontractprevailovergeneralprovisions.SeeSouthernSuretyCo.v. X  Townof_Greeneville_,261F.929(6thCir.1920).Accordingly,weagreewiththetrialjudgethatthe D! specificlanguageinitemnumber39prevailsoverthegenerallanguageinitemnumber54. 0"  Therefore,wefindthisissuetobewithoutmerit.  #l! _  Next,weaddressPrecisionsclaimsforadditionalcompensationforthefollowingworkon $D # theTonySudekumProject:sodandseedreplacement;sidewalks;landscaping;clotheslines;curbsand %0!$ gutters;valveboxes;andhandicapparking.Precisionalsoattemptedtoobtainadditional &"% compensationforvariousworkthattheysubmittedonPayRequestNumber13.Inrulingonthese '#& issues,thetrialcourtstatedthe_following: (#'   [_T]he_ԀCourt findstheplaintiffsdidnotperformtherequirementsofthe )$( contractsoastoentitlethemtorecovery.Specifically,theplaintiffs *%) haventcarriedtheirburdenofprooftoshowthattheyfulfilledthe l+&* requirementsofArticles29(e)and(f)oftheGeneralConditionsto  qualifyfortheadjustments.       Article29(e)oftheGeneralConditionsgoverningtheTony_Sudekum_Ԁprojectstatethe t following: `   TheContractormustassertitsrighttoanadjustmentunderthisclause 8  within30daysafter(1)receiptofawrittenchangeorderunder $ t paragraph(a)ofthisclause,or(2)thefurnishingofawrittennotice  ` underparagraph(b)ofthisclause,bysubmittingawrittenstatement  L  describingthegeneralnatureandtheamountoftheproposal.Ifthe  8  factsjustifyit,theContractingOfficermayextendtheperiodfor $  submission.Theproposalmaybeincludedinthenoticerequired   underparagraph(b)above. NoproposalbytheContractorforan   equitableadjustmentshallbeallowedifassertedafterfinal   paymentunderthiscontract.      (emphasisadded).Theaforementionedlanguageisclearinitsrequirementthatthecontractormust ` assertitsclaimforanadjustmentbeforefinalpaymentunderthecontract.Uponareviewofthe L record,wefindnoevidencethatPrecisioncompliedwiththerequirementssetoutinArticle29(e)of 8 theGeneralConditionstotheTony_Sudekum_ԀProject.Asaresult,wefindnoerrorwiththetrial $t courtsrulingonthisissue.     `   Next,weaddressPrecisionsclaimthatitisentitledtoquantum_meruit_.In_Castelli_Ԁv.Lien, 8 910S.W.2d420(Tenn.Ct.App.1995),themiddlesectionofthiscourtdiscussedindetailthe $ doctrineofquantum_meruit_.Thecourtstatedthefollowing:     Quantum_meruit_Ԁactionsareequitablesubstitutesforcontractclaims.  Theyenablepartieswhohaveprovidedgoodsandservicestoanother  torecoverthereasonablevalueofthesegoodsandserviceswhenthe p followingfivecircumstancesexist:(1)theremustbenoexisting, \  enforceablecontractbetweenthepartiescoveringthesamesubject H! matter;(2)thepartyseekingrecoverymustprovethatitprovided 4"  valuablegoodsandservices;(3)thepartytobechargedmusthave  #p! receivedthegoodsandservices;(4)thecircumstancesmustindicate  $\" thatthepartiesinvolvedinthetransactionshouldhavereasonably $H # understoodthatthepersonprovidingthegoodsorservicesexpected %4!$ tobecompensated;(5)thecircumstancesmustalsodemonstratethat & "% itwouldbeunjustforthepartybenefittingfromthegoodsorservices ' #& toretainthemwithoutpayingforthem. (#'   Id.at427(internalcitationsomitted). [_Q]uantum_Ԁ_meruit_Ԁrecoveriesarelimitedtotheactualvalue *%) ofthegoodsorservices,nottheircontractprice.Id.Intheinstantcase,thetrialcourtdenied l+&* Precisionsclaimsforquantum_meruit_ԀonboththePrestonTaylorandtheTony_Sudekum_ԀProjects  becausethecourtfoundthattherewasnoproofastotheactualvalueoftheservicesrendered.    Wealsonotethat itisageneralruleoflawthatanimpliedcontractorquasicontractwillnot t beimposedincircumstanceswhereanexpresscontractoragreementexists._W.E._Ԁ_Scandlyn_Ԁv. ` _McDill_ԀColumbusCorp.,895S.W.2d342,349(Tenn.Ct.App.1994)(quotingFletcherRealty,Inc. L  v._Hayslope_ԀProperties,712S.W.2d478,481(Tenn.Ct.App.1986)).Intheinstantcase,therewas 8  clearlyanexpresscontractbetweenPrecisionand_MDHA_ԀthatgovernedboththePrestonTaylorand $ t theTony_Sudekum_Ԁprojects.Thecontractscontainedspecificprovisionsthataddresstheissues  ` presentedbyPrecisioninthiscase.Asaresult,weagreewiththecourtbelowthatthisisnotaproper  L  caseforrecoveryunderthedoctrineofquantum_meruit_.Therefore,wefindthisissuetobewithout  8  merit. $    Fortheaforementionedreasons,wefindthatthetrialcourtdidnoterrindenyingPrecisions   claims.Now,weturnto_MDHA_sissue._MDHA_Ԁassertsthatthetrialcourterredinholdingthe   _Eichleay_formulawasanappropriatemethodofcalculatingPrecisionsclaimeddamages.Duetoour   _affirmance_Ԁofthetrialcourtsgrantof_MDHA_sMotionforInvoluntaryDismissal,wedeclinethe p invitationtoaddressthe_Eichleay_issue,asitis_pretermitted_. \    Conclusion 4      Foralloftheaforementionedreasons,weaffirmthejudgmentofthetrialcourt.Costson  \ appealaretaxedtotheappellant,PrecisionMechanicalContractors,forwhichexecutionmayissue H ifnecessary. 4          m ̀#XIXXXI ##BXXI #XIXB     m     u   ___________________________________ $X"      m     u   ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE