WPCk 4Vj 0(yw@ 0J 0T3 0^ 0h 0rM 0| 0; 0 1uQ 0d UB* %l U6r U> B) DC AMR U*  v~ Bcv D3S 0@ AO 0D D/ BNڃ"3|x($ DDUED{Ӏ2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23    ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX<  9p`(Courier New<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d7Border 1dd- C << G<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#  ""   YYY FILED"X September16,1997CecilCrowson,Jr."AppellateCourtClerk PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'h dStyl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Geneva   h HD: Geneva  h HD: Geneva %%%%'dxd("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! .         \RA'\\RA'\7=XXdd7R!# A1-j|`  `@Rߛ ̀@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ EASTERNSECTION CHARLESSHEPHERD,   )C/ANO.03A019701CH00015      )  Appellant,   )BLOUNTCHANCERY      )v.      )HON.CHESTERS.RAINWATER,      )CHANCELLORPERKINSBUILDERS,   )      )AFFIRMEDAND  Appellee.   )REMANDEDKEVINW.SHEPHERD,Maryville,forAppellant.ROBERTN.GODDARD,GODDARD&GAMBLE,Maryville,forAppellee.@ OPINION         Franks.J.  ShepherdsactionforbreachofconstructioncontractagainstPerkinsBuilders(Perkins)wasdismissedattheconclusionoftrialbytheChancellor.Shepherdhasappealed.  ShepherdsissuesonappealarewhethertheTrialJudgeerredindismissingShepherdsclaimonthegroundsthatShepherd failedtoshowamaterialbreachofcontractandwhethertheTrialCourt incorrectlylimitedShepherds proofattrial.  OnJune30,1993,thepartiesenteredanagreementfortheconstructionofadwellinghouse,andPerkinsundertookconstruction.OnDecember1,1993,Shepherdterminatedthecontractbyletterfor failuretocomplywithagreement.Perkinsdidnofurtherworkontheproject,andShepherdcontractedwithanotherbuilderonDecember6,tocompletethestructure.Shepherdalsobroughtanactionagainsttheotherbuilderforshoddyworkmanshipinconnectionwiththeconstructionofthehouse.  TheChancellor,inhisruling,concludedthattheplaintiff failedtoshowbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethattherewasamaterialbreachofthecontract;thatplaintiffhadcondonedthe actionsofPerkinsinthebeginning,andnotedthatthesubsequentcontracttocompletethehousewas inaccordancewiththeoriginalcontractdocumentsandthatiftheworkwasnotdoneinaccordancetothecontract thenthatsamatterbetween...[Shepherd]andhissubsequentcontractor.Additionally,theChancellorfoundthatthedamagesclaimedwerespeculativeandindefinite.  Shepherdargues thatthemostsignificantbreachofthecontractwasthefailureofthecontractortocompletethehouseinatimelymanner,andinsiststhatthepartiesintendedthattheconstructionofthehousewouldbecompletedbyOctober15,1993.Essentially,Shepherdarguesthattimewasoftheessenceforthecompletionofthehouse.Inthisconnection,theChancellorobserved:0 0 Theparties,ingoodfaith,gottogetherandattemptedtoworkoutanarrangementandagreementfortheacquisition,somelandandtheconstructionofaresidencehome.Tosaytheleast,thepaperworkinconnectionwiththistransactionisinartfullydrawn.Lackinginmany,manyrespectsandreallyisatthebaseofthisproblemthatthesepartiesarehaving.Theagreementreferredtoisaboilerplateformintendedasa contractforthesaleofrealestatewithaddendums.Theagreementprovidesthatthepartieswould closenolaterthatOctober15,1993.Possessionwastobeonthedateofclosingwhichwasalsoconditionalunderthetermsofthecontract.ShepherdtestifiedthatconstructiondidnotstartuntilSeptember22,andconstructioncontinuedintermittentlyuntilShepherdterminatedthecontract,whenthehousewasapproximatelyonethirdcompleted.  Indeterminingwhethertimeisoftheessence,theentireagreementisconsidered,togetherwiththecircumstancesofthepartiesandthesubjectmatter.CommerceStreetCo.V.GoodyearTire&RubberCo.,31Tenn.App.314,215S.W.2d4(1949).Generally,timeisnotoftheessenceofabuildingandconstructioncontract.17ACJSContracts,504(2).TheevidenceestablishesthatShepherdwasawarethattheconstructionwouldnotbecompletedlongbeforetheOctober15deadline,butallowedPerkinstocontinueworkingafterthatdate,andencouragedPerkinstocompletethejob.Underthetermsofthewrittenagreementandtheactionsofthepartiesinrelationthereto,weconcludethattimewasnotoftheessenceinthiscontract,andthatfailuretocompletebytheOctober15datewasnotamaterialbreach.  Also,weagreewiththeChancellorsconclusionsthattheevidencedoesnotestablishasufficientbasistoawarddamagesfordefectiveconstruction,andastoanyevidenceofdefects,itisconjecturalastotheresponsibilityforthisasbetweenthecontractors.  Finally,ShepherdarguesthattheCourtimproperlyrestrictedthetestimonyofhiswitness,CharlieJones,ahomeinspector,andasserts:0 0 TheCourtfeltthatthetestimonyinregardstoaninspection,approximatelytwo(2)yearsafterPerkinsBuildersweredischargedfromthecontract,wasfartooremovedfromthebreachinquestiontoberelevant.Heinstructedcounseltoconfinethelineofquestionstotheparticularissue,thatbeingmaterialsfurnishedtothebenefitofthedefendant.Shepherdconcedesthathedidnotmakeanofferofthetestimony,butassertswhatwasexcludedwas obviousfromthecontextoftherecord,i.e., theevidencesoughttoproveboththefactthatthecontractwasnotcompletedinatimelymannerbythecontractors,andthatsecondly,theworkperformedwasofinferiorqualityandworkmanship.  TheTennesseeRulesofEvidence,Rule103(a)(2)provides:0 0 EffectofErroneousRuling. Errormaynotbepredicateduponarulingwhichadmitsorexcludesevidence,unlessasubstantialrightofthepartiesisaffectedand...(2) OfferofProof. Incasetherulingisoneexcludingevidence,thesubstanceoftheevidenceandthespecificevidentiarybasissupportingadmissionweremadeknowntotheCourtbyofferorwereapparentfromthecontext.ӜRefusingtoadmitanyevidenceastowhetherthecontractwascompletedinatimelymannerconstitutesharmlesserror,inviewofourfindingonthatissue,andastotheissueofwhethertheworkwasperformedproperly,suchevidencewouldbefactspecificandthefamiliarrulerequiringnocitationisapplicable,thatwhereanappellantfailstomakeanofferofproofwewillnotreverseaTrialJudgeonthatevidentiaryissue.  ThejudgmentoftheTrialCourtisaffirmedandthecauseremandedwiththecostsofappealassessedtoCharlesShepherd.       ________________________      HerschelP.Franks,J.CONCUR:̜___________________________XDonT.McMurray,J.̜___________________________CharlesD.Susano,Jr.,J.