WPC( \73?6wЗ2 L3A=f%GP1^on+nVMPĽz-ٴ[ֵ;?&bK! 5Q9QKݗYv iĎ _P\uӈ)ֿA*0FnopBf%3!He"ʼn`яM%WQZ:Brv'AH74&-iJb#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz 0U   r 8 0N 0 0E 0 0 0q 0K 0" 0C 09 0 0 0 0 0N 0 0 0@ 0 0 0 0N 0 0 0! 0h"b%#U>-#-#U>k################################# 0#### B$$ 0$ D3]% D-% 0K%% AS&[& 0!' 0D' A (HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0NtE+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regularj5++00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU*+ (_2623  ..Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -\  `&Times New Roman9 &Times New Roman (|G2*$ !.8FdXXd8         0  u d(|3f$ !.8FdXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3f$ !.8FdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Fdd8     _  F8 XXdd8  @ OFINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#FO #Ԉ &   August6,2001Session L X XF #FXX #AHMADVAKILI,etal.v.RANDYHAWKERSMITH,etal.  J  @@X XFAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforCoffeeCounty  p @@No.99364JohnRollins,Chancellor#FXX # 4  X XF@@*AV) ` dE<` A H  @@TTNo.M200001402_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober5,_2001_ C  AV) ` dE<` A    #FXX {#  X XFThiscasearisesfromahomeconstructioncontractenteredintobyAppellantsandAppellee. < AppellantsfiledacomplaintagainstAppelleeintheChanceryCourtforCoffeeCountyforbreach ( ofcontract.Appelleefiledananswerandcountercomplaint.Thetrialcourtfoundthatthecontract  wasacost-pluscontractwithnocaporceilingontheprice,andrenderedjudgmentinfavorof  Appelleefor$26,945.10.Appellantsappeal.Weaffirmthetrialcourt.   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  t   WilliamB.Cain,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichBenH.Cantrell,P.J.,M.S.and L PatriciaJ.Cottrell,J.,joined. 8 JamesS.Stephens,TracyCity,Tennessee,fortheappellants,AhmadVakiliandLisaVakili. ` RichardW.GabrielandJohnR.LaBar,Tullahoma,Tennessee,fortheappellee,Randy 8 Hawkersmith,IndividuallyandHawkersmithConstruction,Inc. $  OPINION  !  K7X2` hp x XKFACTS: #"    2   In1998,theplaintiffs,Mr.AndMrs.Vakili,enteredintoacontractwiththedefendantto \% $ builda3,800squarefoothouseonpropertytheyownedlocatedat3ClairmontCircleinTullahoma, H&!% Tennessee.Thedefendant,RandyHawkersmith,issolestockholderofHawkersmithConstruction, 4'"& Inc.Theplaintiffssolicitedcostestimatesfromseveralareacontractors.Theplaintiffsprovidedthe  (p#' defendantwithasetofhouseplansalongwithaspecificationsheetforthehouse.Thedefendant  )\$( gavetheplaintiffsanestimateofthecosttobuildthehouserelyinguponthelimitedinformationthe )H%) plaintiffsprovidedhim.Theestimatewas$270,778.79. *4&* ̀Theplaintiffsmaintainthattheyinformedthedefendantthat$270,000.00wouldbeaceiling , (, price.Thereisnoevidenceintherecordtosupportthispropositionexceptforthetestimonyofthe -(- plaintiffs.Thedefendantmaintainsthathewouldnotcommittobuildingthehouseforafixedprice  becausetherearetoomanyvariablesthatgointobuildingahouse.Thedefendantonlycontractsto  buildhousesonacost-plusbasis,whereby,thehomeowneronlypaysforwhatactuallygoesintothe  houseaddingthebuilderscommissioninexcessofthatpriceatacertainpercentage. t  2   ThepartiesenteredintoacontractprovidedbythedefendantonNovember20,1998for L  constructionoftheplaintiffshome.Thecontractstatedthatthedefendantwouldbuilda3,800 8  squarefoothousefortheplaintiffsandthat Contractorshallbeentitledtoapaymentof10%above $ t thecostsofconstruction.The$270,778.89amountwasnotreferencedinthecontract,whichreads  ` inpertinentpartasfollows:  L  8 2    ` 1.ContractDescription.Contractorshallbuildahomeofapproximately3800 $  squarefeet,inaccordancewiththeattachedplansandspecifications,initialedbythe   partiesonpremisesknownasLot17&halfof18KingsRidgeSubdivision. 2!2! 8 2    ` 2.Payment.Oncompletion,Contractoristorenderadetailed,itemized   statementtoOwnershowingthenetcostofmaterialsdeliveredatthebuildingsite,thenet   costofmaterialsactuallyinstalledin,anddeliverychargesandlaboractuallyperformed p forandonthebuilding.UpontheexpirationperiodofaproperlyfiledNoticeof \ Completion,Contractorshallbeentitledtoapaymentof10%abovethecostsof H construction.42!2!  2    ` ....  p 8 2    ` 7.ChangeOrders.Ownerreservestherighttoorderworkchangesinthenature  \ ofadditions,deletions,ormodifications,withoutinvalidatingtheAgreement,andagrees H tomakecorrespondingadjustmentsinthecontractpriceintimeforcompletion.All 4 changeswillbeauthorizedbyawrittenchangeordersignedbytheparties. 2!2! ̀Asworkprogressedontheplaintiffshouse,therewereanumberofplanchangesthattook  placesomeincreasingthecostofconstructionandsomedecreasingthecostofconstruction.On  severaloccasionsduringtheconstructionoftheplaintiffshouse,thedefendantprovidedthe  plaintiffswithcostupdatestitled EstimatedCostssothattheplaintiffswouldknowwherethe l moneywasgoingandwhatbillswerebeingpaid.Theplaintiffswerenotprovidedanyrevised X  estimatesofwhatthetotalcostofthehousewouldbe. D! Z7X2` hp x X2XZ 2   OnJuly23,1999,thePlaintiff,Mr.Vakili,wenttothedefendantsofficetocomplete #l! payment.Thedefendantpresentedtheplaintiffwiththefinalbillalongwithanitemizedstatement $X" ofcostsofconstructionindicatingthattheplaintiffsowed$29,466.66plus$1,088.56for $D # reimbursementofthepremiumforworkerscompensationinsurancecoverage.Theplaintiff %0!$ post-datedtwochecksfortheamountsduebutaskedthedefendantnottocashthechecksuntilthe &"% nextweek.TheplaintiffssentthedefendantaletterdatedJuly28,1999statinginpart: '#&  X XW4X2` hp x X2XWThisletteristoinformyouthatthechecknumber8331thatIwrotetoyouon )$( 7/23/1999forthe10%feefortheamountof$29,466.66isnotavalidcheck.Iwrote |*%) thecheckunderprotestofsignificantcostoverrunontheconstructionofourhome, h+&* asInotedtoyouduringthemeetingonJuly23,earlymorning.Istillcannot  understandwhytheconstructioncosthasexceededyourinitialmaximumestimate  amountof$246,162.54.   X XW7X2` hp x X2XW 2   OnAugust2,1999,thedefendantfiledalienontheproperty.Subsequently,thedefendant ` filedanAmendmenttoNoticeofLientoreflectseveraladditionalbillsandinvoicesformaterials L  andserviceswhichwerenotincludedintheitemizationofcostsofconstructionpreviouslyfurnished 8  totheplaintiffs.Thelienwasintheamountof$31,569.12.OnAugust16,1999,anAgreedOrder $ t wasenteredintowherebythelienwasdischargedupontheplaintiffstenderingthesumof  ` $31,569.12intotheregistryoftheCoffeeCountyChanceryCourt.  L   2   OnAugust24,1999,theplaintiffsfiledaComplaintintheChanceryCourtofCoffeeCounty. $  ThenonjurytrialofthiscasewasheldonFebruary28,2000.TheChancellorenteredanOrder,and   subsequentlyonApril10,2000,anAmendedOrder.    2   TheChancellorfound:    X XW4X2` hp x X2XW[T]hepartiesenteredintoacostpluscontractwithnocostcaporceiling. \  X XW7X2` hp x X2XW8 2    ` ...[T]heCourtfindsthattheonlyportionofthehouseasconstructedwhichwas H atvariancewiththebillssubmittedbytheDefendantrelatestoaretainingwallbuiltbythe 4 DefendantonthePlaintiffsproperty.Thecourtfindsthatthecostoftheretainingwall  p is$1,500.00.ThisdetailofconstructionwasnotdiscussedwithPlaintiffspriorto  \ construction.H2!2! Z7X2` hp x X2XZ8 2    ` TheCourtfindsthattherearecertainaspectsofconstructionthatwerenot 4 complete....[T]hecostforrepairsandfinishingdetailtocompletethe punchlistonthe   Plaintiffsresidenceis$2,500.00.... 2!2! Z7X2` hp x X2XZ 2    ` ITISTHEREFOREORDEREDASFOLLOWS:   X XW4X2` hp x X2XW ` ThattheDefendants,RandyHawkersmithandHawkersmithConstruction,  Inc.,areawardedajudgmentagainstthePlaintiffs,AhmadVakiliandwife,Lisa  Vakili,inthefullamountoftheircontractorsfeestotaling$30,945.10.Saidsumis l reducedbytheamountof$4,000.00representingthecostoftheretainingwalland X  thecostforrepairsandfinishingdetail,forajudgmentof$26,945.10. D!  X XW7X2` hp x X2XWTheplaintiffsappealthetrialcourtsjudgment. #l! /X XXX  2   AppellatereviewisgovernedbyTenn.R.App.P.13(d)providingthat reviewoffindings $D # offactbythetrialcourtincivilactionsshallbedenovoupontherecordofthetrialcourt, %0!$ accompaniedbyapresumptionofthecorrectnessofthefinding,unlessthepreponderanceofthe &"% evidenceisotherwise.#X XX/X |.#However,withregardtoissuesoflaw,thestandardofreviewisdenovo '#& withoutapresumptionofcorrectness._Ridings_Ԁv.RalphM.ParsonsCo.,914S.W.2d79,80(Tenn. (#' 1996);Campbellv.FloridaSteelCorp.,919S.W.2d26(Tenn.1996)./X XXX  )$(  #X XX/X 1#1X0 XXX  |*%) #X X X1X01# 2   Thefirstissueonappealiswhetherthecontractisacost-pluscontract.TheChancellor   specificallyfoundthat [_f]rom_Ԁtheexhibitsenteredintoevidenceandthetestimonyoftheparties,  theCourtfindsthatthepartiesenteredintoacostpluscontractwithnocostcaporceiling.We  affirmtheChancellorandfindthatthereisnoquestionthatthecontractatissuewasacost-plus10% t contractwithnocostcaporceiling. `  2   Cost-pluscontractsarecommonlyusedintheconstructionindustry.Bydefinition,they 8  generallyprovidethatthecontractorwillcompleteconstructionwithnospecificcostforthe $ t construction.Rather,thecontractorreceivesapercentageofthetotalconstructioncost.Sometimes  ` cost-pluscontractscontainamaximumpriceortheestimatedpriceoftheproject.Thecontractin  L  thiscasedidnotcontainanagreedlimitastoprice,nordiditcontainacostestimate. Theword  8  estimatemeansageneralcalculationoranapproximatecomputation.Davisv._Sliney_,1988WL $  75331,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.July21,1988).Evenifthecontracthadcontainedtheestimatedprice,    [_w]hen_Ԁanestimateisprovidedinacostpluscontractitissimplythat!anestimate,notafixedprice   orguaranteedmaximum.Rodgersv.Walker,No.03A01-9708-CH-00371,1998WL670381at*3   (Tenn.Ct.App.1998).    2   AppellantsdisputetheChancellorsfindingassertingthatparolevidenceindicatedthe \ plaintiffshadabudgetandthatthepartieshadanimplicitunderstandingthatthepriceofthehouse H couldnotgoovertheestimatedcostof$270,000.00.Theevidenceintherecorddoesnotsupport 4 thisproposition.Thedefendanttestifiedthathetoldtheplaintiffswhentheymetforthefirsttime  p thathedoesnotbuildhomesforafixedprice.Thedefendanttestified:  \  2 8   ` A. (Mr._Hawkersmith_)[_W]hen_ԀImethimItoldhimIdidntdobidwork 4 onhouses.     X XW4X2` hp x X2XW ` Q. (Mr.Gabriel)Whatdoesthatmean,youdontdobidwork?    ` A. Idontgivefixedpricesonahouse.Therestoomanyvariables.I  findwhenyoudoafixedhouseoncostandthenpeoplealwayschangeasyougoand  attheendgettingyourmoneyforwhattheyvehaditishardtodo.Soifyoudoit  onacostpluswhichisthewayIdoit,youpaybasicallyyourepayingforthehouse l asifIbuiltit.Youregettingexactcostofthehousebutthenafterwemethecame X  backandhekindofwantedtonegotiatetheestimate.Hesaidthatanotherbuilder D! hadgavehimacheaperestimate.Itoldhimitsnotafixedprice.Itsanestimate. 0"  Itcouldcostyoumoreorless.Itjustdependsonwhatyoudoatyourhouse.Isaid, #l!  Ifyouhaveacheaperestimate,Isaid, thatsfine.Ivemetyou.Youseemlike $X" aniceman.Ivegotnohardfeelings.Andhesaid,"No,Iwantyoutobuildmy $D # house.Andsothenwemetatimeortwo,youknow,andIguessthatsit. %0!$  ` .... &"%  X XW7X2` hp x X2XW 2    ` Q. Ultimatelydidyouenterintoacontractwithhim? '#&  2    ` A. Wedidaroundthe20thofNovember. (#'  2    ` Q. Andofwhatnaturewasthatcontract?... )$(  2    ` A. Thatcontractwasacostplus. |*%)  h+&*  2   Theplaintiff,Mr._Vakili_,testified: Yes,thisisthecontractwesigned.ActuallyIwanted  tohaveafixedpricecontractbutMr._Hawkersmith_Ԁindicatedhecannotcommittoafixedprice.   2   Thepre-contractdiscussionisconsistentwiththecontractlanguage.Ultimately,thecostof ` theconstructionofthehousedependeduponwhatactuallywentintothehouse,notonthe L  pre-contractestimatebaseduponlimitedinformationprovidedtothedefendant. 8   2   Duringconstruction,theplaintiffsmadeupgradestothehousenotincludedintheplansthe  ` defendantbasedtheestimateon.Theplaintiffsaddedadriveway,securitysystem,centralvacuum  L  system,kitchenlightbox,recessedlighting,wetbar,hardwoodflooring,additionalheatingandair  8  conditioningunits,coincorners,windowtreatments,windowupgrades,enclosedporch,andincurred $  additionalcostsastheresultoftheplaintiffsdecisiontomovethedriveway.    2   Theplaintiffsassertthattheyeliminatedordowngradedcertainthingsintheconstruction   ofthehousesuchasaJacuzzitub,windows,afireplace,bookshelves,apocketdoor,andcounter   tops.Ultimately,thereductionofcostscreatedbytheremovalsanddownwardmodificationsdid p notequalizetheamenitiesaddedtothehousebytheplaintiffs. \  2   Wheninterpretingawrittencontract,itisnecessarytoascertainandtogiveeffecttothe 4 intentionsofthecontractingpartiesasreflectedinthewrittencontractitself./X XXX Ԁ#X XX/X qL#/X XXX RealtyShop,Inc.v.  p R.R.WestminsterHolding,#X XX/X L#7S.W.3d581,597.Itisclearfromthecontractandfromtheparties  \ discussionsthatthepartiesintendedtoenteracost-pluscontract.Weaffirmthetrialcourtsfinding H thatthecontractatissueisinfactacost-pluscontract. 4  2   Appellantsnextassertthatacontractorinacostpluscontracthasadutytogivenoticeof   significantlyincreasedcostsovertheprecontractestimatewhenthecontractcontainsawritten  changeorderprovision.Thisissueiswithoutmeritunderthefactsofthiscase.Primaryreliance  byAppellantsisuponRodgersv.Walker,No.03A019708CH00371,1998WL670381(Tenn.Ct.  App.Sept.30,1998).ThefactsinRodgerspresentanextremesituationnotatallcomparabletothe l caseatbar.WalkerwastobuildforRodgersatwolevel3200squarefoothouseunderacostplus X  contractatanestimatedcostof$230,000.00.WhileMr.andMrs.RodgerswereinEurope,Walker, D! withoutpermissionfromanyone,constructedathreelevelhomeof4800squarefeetwhichincluded 0"  abasement.TheRodgerscasereliedonBarnettv.Willis,No.89361II,1990WL186697(Tenn. #l! Ct.App.June13,1990),perm.App.denied(Tenn.Nov.9,1990)(opiniondesignated nottobe $X" published).BarnettisnottobeaccordedanyprecedentialvaluebecausetheTennesseeSupreme $D # CourtdirectedthatitnotbepublishedandfurthermorewithdrewitfrompublicationonJanuary11, %0!$ 1991.RealtyShop,Inc.v.R.R.WestminsterHolding,7S.W.3d581,60001(Tenn.Ct.App.1999). &"%  2   BarnetthadconstruedTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4750112(c)toprohibitwaiver (#' ofwrittenchangeorderprovisionsunlesssuchwaiverwasinwriting.Suchaconstructionisnot )$( warranted.ThisCourthasheld: |*%)  h+&*  2 8  [_B]y_Ԁtherulesofthecommonlaw,itiscompetentforthepartiestoasimplecontract  inwriting,beforeanybreachofitsprovisions,altogethertowaive,dissolve,or  abandonit,ortoaddto,change,ormodifyit,orvaryorqualifyitsterms,andthus  makeitanewone.Thereasonforthisisthatsimplecontracts,whetherwrittenor t otherwise,are,intheabsenceofastatutechangingtherule,ofthesamedignityin ` contemplationoflaw,andthereforethewrittencontractmaybechanged,modified, L  orwaivedinwholeorinpartbyasubsequentone,express,written,oral,orimplied. 8  Ithasbeensaidthatasubsequentparolmodificationofawrittencontractuponanew $ t considerationconstitutesanewagreement. `    2   17_Am.Jur_.2dContracts466(1964).  L  8 2 82!2!8`   Afterawrittencontractismade,itmaybemodifiedbytheexpress $  wordsofthepartiesinwriting,aswellasbyparol.CoOperative   StoresCo.v.UnitedStatesFidelity&GuarantyCo.,137Tenn.609,   622,195_S.W._Ԁ177,180(1917). ` x` x 8 2 82!2!8`   Whetherwrittenororal,modificationsofwrittencontractsmustbe p withtheconsentofbothparties._V.L._ԀNicholsonCo.v._Transcon_ԀInv. \ &Fin.Ltd.,Inc.,595S.W.2d474,482(Tenn.1980).H` x` x  2    ` _Galbreath_Ԁv.Harris,811S.W.2d88,9192(Tenn.Ct.App.1990). 4  2 TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4750112(c)provides:  \ 8 2   (c)Ifanysuchsecurityagreement,note,deedoftrust,orothercontractcontainsa 4 provisiontotheeffectthatnowaiverofanytermsorprovisionsthereofshallbevalid   unlesssuchwaiverisinwriting,nocourtshallgiveeffecttoanysuchwaiverunlessitis   inwriting.2!2!  2   Sincethecommonlawprovidedthatwrittenandoralcontractswereincontemplationoflaw  equalindignityandsubjecttochange,modificationorwaivermaybemadeeitherorallyorin l writing._T.C.A._Ԁ4750112(c)isinderogationofthecommonlawandmustbestrictlyconstrued. X  SeeAustinv.CountyofShelby,640S.W.2d852(Tenn.Ct.App.1982). D!  2   Thisstatuteappliessolelytocontractualprovisionstotheeffectthatnowaiverofanyterms #l! orprovisionsofthecontractshallbevalidunlesssuchwaiverisinwriting.Nosuchprovision $X" appearsinthecontractatbarwhereinthereisonlyasimpleprovisionthatchangeordersmustbe $D # written.Theruleastowaiverofwrittenchangeorderprovisions(intheabsenceofawrittenwaiver %0!$ provisioncontemplatedbyT.C.A.4750112(c))thecommonlawremainsasassertedin_Galbreath_ &"% andinMooreConstr.v.ClarksvilleDept.ofElec.,707S.W.2d1(Tenn.Ct.App.1985)whereinthis '#& Courtheld: (#' 8 2    ` Includingawrittenchangeorderrequirementinaconstructioncontractisnot |*%) uncommon.Itpromotesamoredefiniteunderstandingbetweenthepartiesandthus,helps h+&* toavoidpotentialcontroversies._Bannon_Ԁv.Jackson,121Tenn.381,391,117_S.W._Ԁ504,  506(1908).Itbenefitstheownerprimarilybecauseitprovidesformalnoticethataclaim  isbeingmadetherebygivingtheowneranopportunitytotakeappropriatecorrectiveaction  ortoprepareaproperresponsetotheclaims.InTennessee,asinamajorityof t jurisdictions,theseprovisionsarevalidandbinding.W&OConstructionCo.v.Cityof ` Smithville,557S.W.2d920,922(Tenn.1977).However,likeothercontractual L  provisions,theycanbewaivedorabrogatedbytheparties.8 2!2! 8 2    ` Thewaiverofawrittenchangeorderrequirementbyanownerisnotalways $ t requiredtobeinwritingbutmaybetheresultofthepartiesconductonthejob.Thus,it  ` isnotuncommonforcourtstofindthatanownerhaswaivedawrittennoticerequirement  L  incaseswhereextraworkhasbeenorderedverballybytheownerortheextraworkhas  8  beenperformedwiththeownersknowledgeandwithoutitsobjection.See_Annot_.,1 $  A.L.R.3d127314&15(1965). 2!2! 8 2    ` Thecourseofdealingbetweenthepartiescanalsoamounttoawaiverwherethe   conductofthepartiesmakesitclearthattheydidnotintendtorelystrictlyupona   contractswrittennoticerequirementandthatadherencetosucharequirementwouldserve   nousefulpurpose._Copco_ԀSteel&EngineeringCo.v.UnitedStates,341F.2d590,598 p (Ct.Cl.1965),and_Willey_Ԁv.Terry&WrightofKentucky,Inc.,421S.W.2d362,363(Ky. \ App.1967).Thus,anownersconsiderationofaclaimonitsmeritswithoutinvokinga H formalwrittennoticerequirementhasbeenheldtoamounttothewaiverofthe 4 requirementtherebypreventingtheownerfromassertingthisclaimatalatertime._Blount_  p BrothersCorp.v.UnitedStates,424F.2d1074,1076(Ct.Cl.1970);Morrison_Knudsen_  \ Co.v.UnitedStates,397F.2d826,848(Ct.Cl.1968).Onceapartyhaswaivedthe H requirementwithregardtoaparticularmatter,itcannotrevokeitswaiver,inwholeorin 4 part,atitsconvenience._Copco_ԀSteel&EngineeringCo.v.UnitedStates,341F.2d590,   599(Ct.Cl.1965). 2!2! MooreConstr.v.ClarksvilleDept.ofElec.,707S.W.2d1,1213(Tenn.Ct.App.1985)(internal  footnotesomitted);seealsoHawkinsv.Ellis,No.02A019708CH00203,1998WL704521(Tenn.  Ct.App.Oct.12,1998);_Birdwell_Ԁv._McKinney_,No.01A019701CV00023,1997WL773730 l (Tenn.Ct.App.Dec.17,1997). X   2   InacomprehensivetreatmentofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4750112(c)thisCourt 0"  heldinRealtyShop,Inc.v.R.R.WestminsterHolding,7S.W.3d581: #l! 8 2    ` Thequestionbecomeswhethertheoptionagreementcontainsaprovision $D # sufficientlysimilartoTenn.CodeAnn.4750112(c)thatitpreventsthepartiesfrom %0!$ waivinganycontractualprovisionunlessthewaiveritselfisinwriting.Theanswertothis &"% questionisno.'#&2!2! 8 2    ` Insteadofrestrictingwaiversofcontractualprovisionstowrittenwaivers, )$( paragraphsixteenoftheoptionagreementprovidesonlythatthepartytotheagreement |*%) whoisentitledtothebenefitofaparticularcontractualprovision maywaivetheterm h+&* orconditioninwriting.Paragraphsixteendoesnotrestrictvalidwaiversonlytothosethat  areinwritinganddoesnotaprovidethatthepartiescannotwaivetheircontractrightsin  anyotherway.Thus,thelanguageofparagraphsixteenoftheoptionagreementdoesnot  havethesamelegalsignificanceasthelanguageinTenn.CodeAnn.4750112(c).The t languageofparagraphsixteenisnotsufficientlysimilartoTenn.CodeAnn.4750 ` 112(c)topreventthepartiesfromwaivingthewrittenchangeorderrequirementinthe L  optionagreementeitherorallyorbytheirconduct.Accordingly,thetrialcourterredasa 8  matteroflawwhenitfoundthatparagraphsixteenoftheoptionagreementtriggeredTenn. $ t CodeAnn.4750112(c). `2!2! RealtyShop,7S.W.3d581,602(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).  8   2   Asthecontractualprovisionatbardoesnotevenmentiontheterm waiveroralorwritten,   TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection4750112(c)iscertainlynottriggeredinthiscase.    2   Itisundisputedthatalllaborandmaterialsforwhichcostinvoicesweresubmittedto   Appellantswentintothehomebuiltby_Hawkersmith_.Allchangesduringconstructionweremade p byorderoforwiththeconsentofAppellantsexceptforthecostsofaretainingwalland$2,500in \  fixupcostsaftercompletion.Astothesetwoitemstotaling$4,000thetrialcourtdidnotallow H recoveryby_Hawkersmith_. 4  2   Theevidencedoesnotpreponderateagainstthefindingsofthetrialjudgeandwetherefore  \ affirmthejudgment. H  2   CostsareassessedtoAppellantsforwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessaryandthecaseis   remandedtothetrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary.   6,XXX2X6   `    `     h      p ___________________________________ X     `     h      p WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE D!    `