{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\uc1\deff0\stshfdbch0\stshfloch0\stshfhich0\stshfbi0\deflang1033\deflangfe1033{\fonttbl{\f0\froman\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 02020603050405020304}Times New Roman;}
{\f36\fnil\fcharset0\fprq2{\*\panose 00000400000000000000}WP TypographicSymbols{\*\falt Courier New};}{\f172\froman\fcharset238\fprq2 Times New Roman CE;}{\f173\froman\fcharset204\fprq2 Times New Roman Cyr;}
{\f175\froman\fcharset161\fprq2 Times New Roman Greek;}{\f176\froman\fcharset162\fprq2 Times New Roman Tur;}{\f177\froman\fcharset177\fprq2 Times New Roman (Hebrew);}{\f178\froman\fcharset178\fprq2 Times New Roman (Arabic);}
{\f179\froman\fcharset186\fprq2 Times New Roman Baltic;}{\f180\froman\fcharset163\fprq2 Times New Roman (Vietnamese);}}{\colortbl;\red0\green0\blue0;\red0\green0\blue255;\red0\green255\blue255;\red0\green255\blue0;\red255\green0\blue255;
\red255\green0\blue0;\red255\green255\blue0;\red255\green255\blue255;\red0\green0\blue128;\red0\green128\blue128;\red0\green128\blue0;\red128\green0\blue128;\red128\green0\blue0;\red128\green128\blue0;\red128\green128\blue128;\red192\green192\blue192;
\red255\green255\blue255;}{\stylesheet{\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \snext0 Normal;}{\*\cs10 \additive \ssemihidden Default Paragraph Font;}{\*
\ts11\tsrowd\trftsWidthB3\trpaddl108\trpaddr108\trpaddfl3\trpaddft3\trpaddfb3\trpaddfr3\tscellwidthfts0\tsvertalt\tsbrdrt\tsbrdrl\tsbrdrb\tsbrdrr\tsbrdrdgl\tsbrdrdgr\tsbrdrh\tsbrdrv 
\ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs20\lang1024\langfe1024\cgrid\langnp1024\langfenp1024 \snext11 \ssemihidden Normal Table;}{\*\cs15 \additive \sbasedon10 \ssemihidden footnote reference;}{
\s16\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext16 \styrsid12585345 header;}{\s17\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqc\tx4320\tqr\tx8640\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 \sbasedon0 \snext17 \styrsid12585345 footer;}}{\*\rsidtbl \rsid672624\rsid8073574\rsid9508377\rsid12585345\rsid14371013}{\*\generator Microsoft Word 10.0.6764;}{\info
{\title IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\author lroberto}{\operator blake_r}{\creatim\yr2005\mo8\dy12\hr9\min4}{\revtim\yr2006\mo3\dy10\hr15\min33}{\version4}{\edmins2}{\nofpages13}{\nofwords5226}{\nofchars29793}{\*\company Superior Court of Guam}
{\nofcharsws34950}{\vern16391}}\margl1440\margr1440 \widowctrl\ftnbj\aenddoc\notabind\wraptrsp\transmf\noxlattoyen\expshrtn\noultrlspc\dntblnsbdb\nospaceforul\truncatefontheight\subfontbysize\sprsbsp\wpjst\lytprtmet\hyphcaps0\horzdoc\dghspace120
\dgvspace120\dghorigin1701\dgvorigin1984\dghshow0\dgvshow3\jcompress\viewkind4\viewscale100\nolnhtadjtbl\rsidroot8073574 \fet0{\*\ftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\insrsid8073574 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\ftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid8073574 \chftnsepc 
\par }}{\*\aftnsep \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid8073574 \chftnsep 
\par }}{\*\aftnsepc \pard\plain \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\insrsid8073574 \chftnsepc 
\par }}\sectd \linex0\headery1440\footery1440\sectdefaultcl\sectrsid8073574\sftnbj {\header \pard\plain \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\tqr\tx9360\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\i\fs18\insrsid8073574 B.M. Co. v. Avery
}{\fs18\insrsid8073574 , Opinion\tab Page }{\field{\*\fldinst {\fs18\insrsid8073574 PAGE }}{\fldrslt {\fs18\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid672624 13}}}{\fs18\insrsid8073574  of 18}{\insrsid8073574 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid8073574 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\sl-9\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\lang1024\langfe1024\noproof\insrsid672624 
{\shp{\*\shpinst\shpleft1440\shptop0\shpright10800\shpbottom9\shpfhdr1\shpbxpage\shpbxignore\shpbypara\shpbyignore\shpwr3\shpwrk0\shpfblwtxt1\shpz0\shplockanchor\shplid2049{\sp{\sn shapeType}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fFlipH}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFlipV}{\sv 0}}
{\sp{\sn fillColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fillBackColor}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fFilled}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn lineWidth}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fLine}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fShadow}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn posrelh}{\sv 1}}{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}{\sp{\sn fBehindDocument}{\sv 1}}
{\sp{\sn fLayoutInCell}{\sv 0}}}{\shprslt{\*\do\dobxpage\dobypara\dodhgt0\dprect\dpx1440\dpy0\dpxsize9360\dpysize9\dpfillfgcr0\dpfillfgcg0\dpfillfgcb0\dpfillbgcr0\dpfillbgcg0\dpfillbgcb0\dpfillpat1\dplinehollow}}}}{\insrsid8073574 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\sl-240\slmult0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid8073574 
\par }}{\*\pnseclvl1\pnucrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl2\pnucltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl3\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta .}}{\*\pnseclvl4\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxta )}}
{\*\pnseclvl5\pndec\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl6\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl7\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl8
\pnlcltr\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}{\*\pnseclvl9\pnlcrm\pnstart1\pnindent720\pnhang {\pntxtb (}{\pntxta )}}\pard\plain \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF GUAM}{\insrsid672624 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 B.M. Co.,
\par A Guam Partnership}{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 vs.
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 JIMMY K. AVERY AND MARIA F. AVERY}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants}{\insrsid672624 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Supreme Court Case No.: CVA00-026
\par Superior Court Case No.: CV0422-95}{\insrsid672624 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION}{\insrsid672624 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Filed:}{\b\insrsid672624  }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 October 23, 2002}{\insrsid672624 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Cite as:}{\b\insrsid672624  }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 2002 Guam 19}{\insrsid672624 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Appeal from the Superior Court of Guam
\par Argued and submitted on September 21, 2001
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam }{\insrsid672624 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }\trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow \ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 
\cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\pard 
\ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\intbl\faauto\rin0\lin0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }{\ul\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Appearing for Plaintiff-Appellant/}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }{\ul\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Cross-Appellee:}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par Ron Moroni, }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Esq}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 .
\par Law Office Thomas M. Tarpley, Jr.
\par A Professional Corp.
\par Suite 201, American Life Bldg.
\par 137 Murray Blvd.
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell 
\par }{\ul\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Appearing for Defendants-Appellees/}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }{\insrsid672624  }{\ul\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Cross-Appellants}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 :
\par Maria T. Cenzon-Duenas, }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Esq}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 .
\par Mair, Mair, Spade, & Thompson
\par A Professional Corp.
\par Suite 807, GCIC Bldg.
\par 414 W. Soledad Ave.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par Hag\'e5t\'f1a, Guam 96910\cell }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\widctlpar\intbl\aspalpha\aspnum\faauto\adjustright\rin0\lin0 {\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \trowd \irow0\irowband0\lastrow 
\ts11\trqc\trgaph120\trleft-120\trftsWidth1\trpaddl120\trpaddr120\trpaddfl3\trpaddfr3 \clvertalt\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrnone \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx4560\clvertalt
\clbrdrt\brdrnone \clbrdrl\brdrs\brdrw15\brdrcf1 \clbrdrb\brdrnone \clbrdrr\brdrnone \cltxlrtb\clftsWidth3\clwWidth4680\clshdrawnil \cellx9240\row }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid672624 
\par }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 BEFORE:}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 F. PHILIP CARBULLIDO, Chief Justice (Acting)}{\cs15\super\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\fs20\super\insrsid8073574 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid8073574 
 Chief Justice Siguenza recused himself from deciding this matter.  Justice F. Philip Carbullido, as next senior member of the panel, was designated as the Acting Chief Justice.}{\insrsid8073574 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 {\insrsid8073574 
\par }}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , JOHN A. MANGLONA, Designated Justice, and RICHARD H. BENSON, Justice }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Pro Tempore}{\insrsid672624 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 CARBULLIDO, J.:
\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [1]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab On December 27, 2001, this court issued an Opinion in this case, cited as 2001 Guam 27.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
Thereafter, the court granted rehearing for the purpose of addressing one issue on appeal: whether the lower court erred in denying the Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee B.M. Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s (hereinafter, }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 )}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 post-trial motions as to the jury}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s findings on BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s affirmative claims for damages in the underlying breach of contract action.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 We find that 
the lower court erred in denying BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s motion for a new trial and in rejecting BM Co.}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s proposed jury instruction as it related to BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s affirmative claims for additional work.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 We therefore reverse the trial court}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s decision with regard to those issues, and supplement the original Opinion with the instant Opinion accordingly.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 I.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [2]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab This appeal arises out of a breach of contract action between BM Co. and the Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellants Jimmy and Maria Avery (hereinafter }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Averys}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 ).}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 The facts of this case are set forth fully in our December 27, 2001 Opinion.}{\insrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
See BM Co. v. Avery}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 2001 Guam 27, }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  2-6.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 The additional facts relevant to this Supplem
ental Opinion are as follows. In the lower court, BM Co. claimed that it was entitled to $42,027.00 for worked performed and amounts retained under the contract with the Averys.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
The jury denied these affirmative claims.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 BM Co. thereafter filed a motion to alter or amend judgment and for a new trial as to this amount, which the trial court denied.}{\insrsid672624  }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 BM Co. appealed the judgment and the trial court}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s post-judgment rulings.

\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [3]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab On appeal, BM Co. presented numerous issues, including a challenge to the trial court}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s denial of BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s post-trial motions as to its affirmative claims for damages.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 On December 27, 2001, this court issued an Opinion, addressing all issues with the exception of BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s aforementioned challenge.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
As a result, on January 11, 2002, BM Co. filed a Petition for Rehearing, requesting that this court consider the argument raised on appeal but not addressed in our December 27, 2001 Opinion.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
Similarly, on January 10, 2002, the Averys filed a Motion for Clarification, seeking a clarification on whether the court}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s failure to address BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s argument was tantamount to an affirmance of the lower court}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s decision on that issue.}{\insrsid672624  }
{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 On February 14, 2002, this court granted both the petition for rehearing and clarification motion for the purpose of addressing the sole issue of whether the trial court erred in denying BM Co.}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s post-trial motions in which BM Co. sought to overturn the jury}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s denial of its affirmative claims for damages.
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 II.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [4]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab This court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Title 7 GCA }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  3107 (1994).}{\insrsid672624  }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 III.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 A.}{\b\insrsid672624  }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Argument on Appeal}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [5]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab At trial, BM Co. claimed that the Averys owed them a total of $98,027.52 on the contract, broken down as follows:}{\insrsid8073574 
\par }{\insrsid672624\charrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Item No. 1:\tab Electrical Change Order\tab \tab \tab $11,502.00
\par Item No. 2:\tab Revisions to Doors and Windows\tab \tab $}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 7,730.00
\par Item No. 3:\tab Toilet Exhaust System \tab \tab \tab $}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 2,688.00
\par }\pard \qj \fi2160\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 4% GRT \tab \tab \tab \tab \tab $}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 107.52
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Retention Due to Defective Roof Slab \tab \tab $20,000.00
\par 5% Contract Retention \tab \tab \tab  \tab $56,000.00
\par Total Amount Due to Contractor \tab \tab \tab $98,027.52
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [6]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab Of this above total, the Averys eventually agreed to pay the $56,000.00 contract retention amount.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
BM Co. argued that it was entitled to the remaining balance totaling $42,027.52, ($98,027.52 }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 66 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
 56,000.00), averaged to $42,020.00.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 The jury failed to adjust its damage award by this claimed amount.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
BM Co. asserts that because the evidence supports a finding on this claimed amount, the jury erred in denying BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s claim for this amount.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 BM Co. further argues that the trial court erred in denying BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}
{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 JNOV}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 ) and a new trial as to the jury}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s finding on this claim.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [7]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab Furthermore, BM Co. claims that several of the items for which the Averys were liable represented items for a
dditional work: specifically, an electrical change order, revisions to doors and windows, and an exhaust system.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
BM Co. admits that these work orders were not reduced to writing via a change order, but were agreed upon orally between the parties.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 BM Co. contends that the trial court}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s denial of its proposed jury instructions regarding the performance of additional work resulted in prejudice.}{\insrsid672624  }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [8]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab The Averys assert that BM Co. did not raise the argument that the
 jury verdict was unsupported by the evidence in its post-trial motion, and therefore, BM Co. is barred from raising the issue on appeal.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
Furthermore, the Averys assert that BM Co. based its motion only on an argument that defense counsel}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s opening statement acknowledging the above monies due is binding on the Averys.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 The Averys contend that counsel}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s opening statements are not judicial admissions binding on a client and, therefore, the trial court properly denied BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s post-trial motion on that ground.
\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 B.}{\b\insrsid672624  }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Standard of Review}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [9]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab At the outset, we note that in its Opening Brief, BM Co. seeks review of the trial court}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s ruling on its JNOV and new trial motions.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Our review of the record reveals that BM Co. raised a challenge to the jury}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s findings on its affirmative claims vi
a a new trial motion and a Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 In its moving papers, BM Co. did not seek to overturn the jury}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s verdict via a motion for JNOV.}{\cs15\super\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\ql \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\super\insrsid8073574 2}{\fs20\insrsid8073574  We note that
 during the hearing on its post-trial motions, BM Co. argued that it was entitled to a JNOV as to its affirmative claims for damages.  However, in its motion which was filed in the lower court, BM Co. challenged the verdict through a motion to alter and a
mend and for a new trial.  Furthermore, the lower court treated BM Co.}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 
s challenges as such, and not as a request for a JNOV.  Accordingly, we are constrained to similarly review BM Co.}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 
s instant challenges in the context of its Rule 59(e) and new trial motions}{\insrsid8073574 .}}}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Therefore, notwithstanding BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s erroneous characterization of the issue on appeal, we herein elect substance over form, and review whether the trial court erred in denying BM Co.}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s motion to alter or amend the judgment and motion for a new trial on its affirmative claims.
\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [10]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab We review a lower court}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s denial of a motion for a new trial for an abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 See J.J. Moving Servs., Inc. v. Sanko Bussan (Guam) Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 1998 Guam 19, }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  14, 26.}{\insrsid672624  }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 When reviewing the denial of a motion for a new trial, the inquiry is }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
whether the verdict is either supported by substantial evidence or whether the jury}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s decision is against the clear weight of the evidence.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
Leon Guerrero v. DLB Constr. Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 1999 Guam 9, }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  21.}{\insrsid672624  }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 We similarly review both the trial court}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s denial of a motion to alter or amend the judgment and the court}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s rejection of a proposed jury instruction for an abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Guam Bar Ethics Comm. v. Maquera}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 2001 Guam 20, }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  8 (reviewing the denial of a motion under Rule 59(e) for an abuse of discretion); }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 . }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 v. Brennan}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , Civ. No. 92-00064A, 1993 WL 470426, at *4 (D. Guam App. Div. Oct. 19, 1993) (reviewing the court}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s decision to reject a proposed jury instruction for an abuse of discretion).
\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 C.}{\b\insrsid672624  }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Discussion}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 1.}{\b\insrsid672624  }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 The trial court}{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s denial of BM Co.}{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s new trial and Rule 59(e) motions.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [11]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab  BM Co. argues that the lower court erred in denying its post-judgment motions.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 The Averys assert that BM Co.}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s argument is barred because it was not raised previously in the lower court.}{\insrsid672624  }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 We disagree with the Averys.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 In its Decision and Order filed on September 13, 2000, the lower court explicitly rejected BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s challenge to the jury}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s findings on its affirmative claims, finding that }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
statements made by Defense Counsel in opening arguments}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
 are not evidence which supports its affirmative claim for damages.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 While the trial court addressed only the effect of statements made by counsel, our review of BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s post-trial motions on the issue of BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s affirmative claims reveals that reference was made to its present argument that the evidence, both documentary and testimonial, does not support the jury award.}{\insrsid672624  }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Specifically, in its post-trial motions, BM Co. argued that the judgment should be amended because the Averys}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  counsel made statements which amounted to judicial admissions, and that }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 these admissions are in accord with the admissions of Jimmy Avery in Exhibit 204 and his testimony at trial}{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 where he admitted}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
 to withholding amounts owed on account of the retention for the defective roof panel, the electric change order, revisions to doors and windows, and revisions to the toilet exhaust fan.}{\i\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
Record on Appeal, tab 210 (Plaintiff}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s Motions and Memorandum for JNOV, to Alter or Amend Judgment, and For a New Trial, p. 13,}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Jun. 9, 2000).}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
Furthermore, referencing its earlier discussion, BM Co. later argued that it was entitled to a new trial because the jury}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 refusal to award Plaintiffs the amou
nts even the Defendants admit were owing to them . . . [was] contrary to the weight of the evidence in this case.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid672624  }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Record on Appeal, tab 210 (Plaintiff}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s Motions and M
emorandum for JNOV, to Alter or Amend Judgment, and For a New Trial, p. 18,}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Jun. 9, 2000).}{\i\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Therefore, because the issue was in fact addressed in BM Co.}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s post-judgment motions, it is properly before us on appeal.}{\insrsid672624  }{
\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 See Dumaliang v. Silan}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 2000 Guam 24, }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
 12 (stating the general rule that this court only reviews issues raised previously in the lower court).
\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [12]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab The $42,020.00 that BM Co. seeks to recover is the balance due for work that BM Co. claims to have performed for the Averys.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
BM Co. argues that the jury erred in rejecting its claim for $42,020.00, and the trial court erred in denying its post-judgment motions as to this claim, because evidence at trial, including statements made by the Averys}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  counsel and documentary and testimonial evidence, supported the claim.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [13]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab The standard of review for a jury award of damages is whether the award is supported by substantial evidence. }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 See Leon Guerrero}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 1999 Guam 9 at }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 20.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that a reasonable person may accept as sufficient to support a conclusion, even if inconsistent conclusions may be drawn from the evidence. }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Id}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 .}{
\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 A new trial may be granted if the jury}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s failure to award damages renders the award insufficient or inadequate.}{\insrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 See DePinto v. Provident Sec. Life Ins. Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 323 F.2d 826, 837-38 (9th Cir. 1963); }{
\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 see also}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 McHose v. Physician & Clinic Servs., Inc.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 548 N.W.2d 158, 162 (Iowa App. Ct. 1996) (}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 An inadequate damage award merits a new trial as much as an excessive one.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 ); }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Craigmiles v. Egan}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 618 N.E.2d 1242, 1248 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993); }{
\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Thayer v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 703 N.E.2d 221, 228 (Mass. Ct. App. 1998) (discussing the standard of review for new trial motions based on an inadequate award of damages).}{
\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
A jury has substantial discretion in determining the amount of damages, but a new trial may be awarded if the damages are manifestly inadequate, if clear proof of the damages has been ignored, or
 if the award bears no reasonable relation to the loss suffered.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Craigmiles}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 618 N.E.2d at 1248; }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 see also Thorpe v. City and County of Denver}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 494 P.2d 129, 131 (Colo. Ct. App. 1971).}{\insrsid672624  }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [14]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab The trial court denied BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s motion as to this claim for $42,027.00 solely based on a finding that counsel}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s statements do not have the force and effect of evidence presented at trial.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Specifically, the trial court found that }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Plaintiff}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s argument that the judgment should be further reduced by $42,027.00 due to statements made by Defense Counsel in opening arguments . . . [is] non-persuasive and without merit.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Appellant}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s Excerpts of Record, tab F, p. 34 (Decision and Order, Sept. 13, 2000).}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 The trial court rea
soned that, as the jury was instructed, statements by counsel are not evidence, and that, consequently, the opening statements by the Averys}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  counsel, acknowledging the amount owing to BM Co., were not binding on the Averys.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [15]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab While the general rule is that statements of counsel are not evidence, certain statements by counsel can still be considered judicial admissions binding on the client}{
\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 .}{\i\insrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Kohne v. Yost}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 818 P.2d 360, 362-63 (Mont. 1991).}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 It
 is clear that, in rejecting B.M. Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s claims, the trial court did not analyze why the statements made in this case did not qualify as judicial admissions.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 However, because we do not have a copy of the opening statement,}{
\cs15\super\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid8073574 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid8073574 
 Transcripts of opening arguments were not requested by BM Co. and were not made part of the record except as referenced in the trial court}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid8073574 s Decision and Order.}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  this court cannot determine whether the statements made by the Averys}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  counsel were of such a nature that they would be binding as judicial admissions.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Accordingly, we are unable to determine whether the lower court}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s rejection of BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s argument was an error warranting a new trial.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
In such circumstance, the lack of an adequate record before us would warrant a reversal with instructions on remand to review counsels}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  statements in light of the rule announced above; however, such a result is unnecessary in light of our holding, as discussed below, that BM Co. is nonetheless entitled to a new trial on its affirmative claims.}{
\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [16]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab BM Co. argues that the jury}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s verdict was contrary to the documentary and testimonial evidence at trial and that the trial court erred in failing to consider this evidence in denying its motion for a new trial.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 We agree.}{
\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 A review of the record indicates that a letter from Jimmy K. Avery, dated May 20, 1994, in which Mr. Avery details and acknowledges owing the claimed $42,020.00, was admitted into evidence.}{\insrsid672624 
 }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 This letter states, in pertinent part:
\par }{\insrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Presently we recognize the following credits to BM Co. from their claim.
\par Item No. 1\tab Electrical change order\tab \tab \tab $11,502.00
\par Item No. 5\tab Revisions to door & windows\tab \tab \tab $}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 7,730.00
\par Item No. 6\tab Toilet exhaust fan\tab \tab \tab \tab $}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 2,795.00
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Retention for defective roof panel\tab \tab \tab $20,000.00
\par 5% Contract Retention\tab \tab \tab \tab }{\ul\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 $56,000.00}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qj \fi3600\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid672624 Total\tab \tab \tab \tab $98,027.00}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid672624 
\par }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Trial Exhibit No. 204.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 The May 20, 1994 letter details and acknowledges the amounts retained by the Averys and the value of additional work performed by BM Co.}{
\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 In addition to this letter, testimony was elicited regarding BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s claims for additional work.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Specifically, the Averys}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  counsel asked Mr. Avery the following: }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
Did you agree to add $11,502.00 to that price for an electrical change order?}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
 to which Mr. Avery replied, }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Yes, I did.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Transcript, vol. V, p. 128 (Trial, May 15, 2000).}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Counsel next asked, }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Okay.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
Did you agree to add $7,730.00 to that price for the revision of the door windows in the store?}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
 to which Mr. Avery replied, }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 That}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s correct; yes.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  C
ounsel later asked, }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 And did you agree to add $2,688.00 to this price for the toilet exhaust fan system?}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  to which Mr. Avery replied, }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 I did.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
 Transcript, vol. V, p. 128 (Trial, May 15, 2000).}{\insrsid8073574 
\par }{\insrsid672624\charrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [17]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab In the instant case, the first change order issued under the contract contained an express provision requiring that all future additional 
work be accompanied by a written change order.}{\cs15\super\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {
\cs15\super\insrsid8073574 \chftn }{\fs20\super\insrsid8073574  }{\fs20\insrsid8073574 Appellees}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 
 Supplemental Excerpts of Record, tab 14 (Defendants}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid8073574  Trial Exhibit N) (Scope of Change Order No. 001, }{\fs20\insrsid8073574 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid8073574  11) (}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 
The contractor will adhere only to a written change order from AES or from the owner. Actions taken on a verbal instruction will not be honored as a part of accomplished contract work.}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 ); }{\i\fs20\insrsid8073574 see also}{\fs20\insrsid8073574  Appellees}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{
\fs20\insrsid8073574  Supplemental Excerpts of Record, tab 3 (Trial Transcript of Proceedings Continued Jury Trial, vol. III, May 11, 2000).}}}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 B
M Co. admits that the additional work it claims payment for was done without a written change order, but asserts that the parties nonetheless agreed to the work.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
BM Co. argues that because the documentary and testimonial evidence supported its claim for additional work, the lower court erred in denying its post-judgment motions for this claim.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
The issue which arises here is whether the lower court was required to consider the evidence regarding additional work for which there was no written change order where the contract required that all change orders be made in writing.}{\insrsid672624  }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 We find that the lower court should have considered this evidence, and its failure to do so in denying BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s motion for a new trial was an abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid8073574 
\par }{\insrsid672624\charrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [18]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab Additional work is basically any work in connection with a construction contract that arises apart from the original contract. }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
See Frank T. Hickey, Inc. v. Los Angeles Jewish Cmty. Council}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 276 P.2d 52, 58, 128 Cal. App. 2d 676, 683 (Ct. App. 1954) (citations omitted);}{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
 C.F. Bolster Co. v. J.C. Boespflug Constr. Co., }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 334 P.2d 247, 252, 167 Cal. App. 2d 143, 151 (Ct. App. 1959) (citations omitted); 11 C}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 AL}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 . J}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 UR}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 . 3}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 D}{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  Building and Construction Contracts }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  25 (1996).}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
Generally, if a construction contract requires all additional work done to be accompanied by a written change order before the contractor can receive any remuneration, then an owner may dema
nd compliance with this requirement before being charged for any such work. }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 See Greenwald v. Royal Indem. Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
, 245 P.2d 1115, 1117, 112 Cal. App. 2d 183, 186 (Dist. Ct. App. 1952) (citations omitted);}{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 11 C}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 AL}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 . J}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 UR}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 . 3}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 D}{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  Building and Construction Contracts}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  26 (1996).}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
However, a provision requiring a written change order can be impliedly waived if the circumstances or the conduct of the parties indicate that the parties intended to waive the provision.}{\insrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 See Wils
on v. Keefe, }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
309 P.2d 516, 518, 150 Cal. App. 2d 178, 180-81 (Dist. Ct. 1957) (holding that where a contractor supplied extra material for the construction of a building on the request and with the full knowledge of the owner, but neither party suggested c
ompliance with a provision of the construction contract that such extras be agreed on in advance and fixed in writing, such conduct waived compliance with the provision); }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 see also Cascade Elec. Co. v. Rice}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 245 N.W.2d 774, 775-76 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976) (citations omitted); }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Shreves v. D.R. Anderson Constructors, Inc., }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
293 N.W.2d 106, 110 (Neb. 1980) (citations omitted); }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Reif v. Smith}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 319 N.W.2d 815, 817 (S.D. 1982); }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Ken Cucchi Constr., Inc. v. O}{
\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Keefe}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 973 S.W.2d 520, 524-25 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998); }{
\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Wisch & Vaughan Constr. Co. v. Melrose Props. Corp.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 21 S.W.3d 36, 42-43 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000); }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Consol. Fed. Corp. v. Cain}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
, 394 S.E.2d 605, 607 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990) (citations omitted); 11 C}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 AL}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 . J}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 UR}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 . 3d }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
Building and Construction Contracts }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  26 (1996).
\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [19]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab Here, the May 20, 1994 letter in which Mr. Avery acknowledged an agreement as to the work done and its value, coupled with Mr. Avery}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s testimony at trial further acknowledging that he agreed to the additional work,}{\cs15\super\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \chftn 
{\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid8073574 \chftn }{\insrsid8073574  }{\fs20\insrsid8073574 
There is a discrepancy of $107.00 between the amount Mr. Avery acknowledges owing for the toilet exhaust fan system in the May 20, 1994, letter and the amount referenced during h
is testimony at trial.  Nonetheless, the evidence clearly showed that Mr. Avery admitted to owing for work performed regarding the exhaust fan system. }}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
 evinces conduct tending to indicate a waiver of the written change order requirement.}{\insrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 See, e.g., Custom Builders, Inc. v. Clemons}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
, 367 N.E.2d 537, 540 (Ill. Ct. App. 1977) (holding that testimony by owner that she orally agreed to modifications of construction contract established her waiver of the contract requirement that changes be ordered in writing) (citations omitted).
\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [20]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab The existence of a waiver of written change order requirement is a question of fact for the jury to determine.}{\insrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
See Cascade Elec.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 245 N.W.2d at 776 (citing }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Klas v. Pearce Hardware & Furniture Co}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 ., 168 N.W. 425, 427 (Mich. Ct. App. 1918)) (citations omitted).}{
\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 The jury award in this case did not reflect any credit to BM Co. for items of additional work which Mr. Avery admitted in his letter and his trial testimony he owed to BM Co.}{\insrsid672624  }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Thus, the jury}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s award was contrary to the clear weight of the evidence.}{
\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Accordingly, in denying BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s post-trial motions, the lower court erred in failing to consider the evidence supporting BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s claims for additional work.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Because the trial court failed to consider material evidence that BM Co. identified in its post-trial motions, the trial court abused its discretion. }{
\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 See English v. Green, }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 787 A.2d 1146, 1149 (R.I. 2001) (citing }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Kurczy v. St. Joseph Veterans Ass}{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst 
SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 n}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 713 A.2d 766, 770 (R.I. 1998)) (reviewing a motion for a new trial and finding that a trial court}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s decision to grant or deny the motion will not be disturbed unless the trial judge has }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 overlooked or misconceived material and relevant evidence or was otherwise clearly wrong.}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid672624 ).}{\insrsid8073574 
\par }{\insrsid672624\charrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [21]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s motion for a new trial as to its affirmative claims against the Averys.
\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [22]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab On appeal, BM Co. also argues that the lower court erred in failing to render judgment in its favor as to these affirmative claims for damages.}{\insrsid672624  }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 We disagree. A motion to alter or amend the judgment is allowed under Guam Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), which models Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
Guam R. Civ. P. 59(e).}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
A motion to amend the judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) is appropriate if the court in the original judgment has failed to give relief on a claim on which it has found that the party is entitled to relief.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Cont}{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 l Cas. Co. v. Howard}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 775 F.2d 876, 883 (7th Cir. 1985) (citation omitted) (holding that because the jury found that the plaintiff wa
s not entitled to relief, the trial court properly denied the Rule 59(e) motion).}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
However, a court may not alter or amend a judgment in a way that increases an award of damages in favor of one party unless the jury found that the non-moving party was liab
le and the movant is entitled to an increase in the amount of damages as a matter of law.}{\insrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Compare DePinto}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 323 F.2d at 837-38, }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 with}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Liriano v. Hobart Corp}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 ., 170 F.3d 264, 272-73 (2d Cir. 1999), }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 and}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  }{
\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Robinson v. Cattaraugus County}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 147 F.3d 153, 161 (2d Cir. 1998).}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 The trial court does have power, where the record warrants, to set aside a jury verdict for plaintiff, on the ground that the jury award of damages is inadequate.}{\insrsid672624  }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 But when that is done the only recourse is to grant a new trial.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid672624  }{
\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 DePinto}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 323 F.2d at 838.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [23]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab Here, BM Co. claimed that the jury}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s award was insufficient because the jury failed to award damages on its affirmative claims.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
BM Co. requested that the lower court amend the judgment in its favor by increasing the damage award against the Averys in the amount of $42,020.00.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
Such an amendment to the award would be improper considering that the jury did not find the Averys liable for breach of contract.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Furthermore, while the weight of the evidence favors BM Co.}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s claims, we do not find that the evidence supports a finding that the Averys should be held liable for
 the amounts claimed as a matter of law.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Under the facts, the trial court could, at most, grant a new trial as to these claims.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
Accordingly, we find that the trial court did not err in denying BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s Rule 59(e) motion as to BM Co.}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s affirmative claims for damages. 
\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qj \fi1440\li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 2.}{\b\insrsid672624  }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 The lower court}{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s rejection of BM Co.}{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s proposed jury instructions. }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [24]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab BM Co. also argues that the trial court erred in rejecting its proposed Instructions Numbers 23}{\cs15\super\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid8073574 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid8073574  In its Appellant}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 s Brief, BM Co objects to the lower court}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 
s rejection of two proffered jury instructions, 3Z and 8; however, our review of the record shows that instruction 3Z which BM Co. refers to was actually designated and submitted to the lower court as proposed instruction 23.  Reco
rd on Appeal, tab. 170 (Plaintiff}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 
s Proposed Jury Instructions, May 15, 2000).   In an effort to be consistent with the record, we herein refer to BM Co.}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 
s proposed instruction 3Z as proposed instruction 23.   }}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  and 8.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s propo}{\insrsid672624 sed Instruction No. 8 provides:}{\insrsid8073574 
\par }{\insrsid672624\charrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 A contract in writing may be altered by a contract, in writing, }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
or by an oral agreement performed by at least one of the parties}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 .
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par Appellant}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s Excerpts of Record, tab O (Plaintiff}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s Proposed Voir Dire Questions and Jury Instructions, May 8, 2000) (emphasis added).}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 The court rejected BM Co.}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s proposed instruction and gave the following instruction, designated as Instruction 3O, instead:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 A contract in writing may be altered by a contract, in writing, }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 or by an executed oral a
greement, and not otherwise}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 .
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par Record on Appeal, tab 192 (Jury Instructions, May 23, 2000) (emphasis added).
\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [25]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s proposed Jury Instruction No. 23 provides:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 If you find that the Averys or AES required BM 
Co. to perform extra or additional work that was not actually required by the contract and for which a change order should have been issued, then you may award BM Co. damages even though no change order was actually issued.}{\insrsid8073574 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid672624\charrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Record on Appeal, tab 170 (Plaintiff}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}
}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s Proposed Jury Instructions, May 15, 2000).}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 The trial court rejected this jury instruction and did not provide an alternative jury instruction in its place.}{
\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 BM Co. challenges the trial court}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s rejection of its proposed jury instructions.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [26]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab We first note that BM Co. did not raise this error in its post-trial motions.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
Therefore, this court is precluded from reviewing the instant challenge in the context of the lower court}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s denial of BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s post-judgment motions.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
While we decline to review BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s challenge regarding the jury instructions in the context of BM Co.}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s post-trial motions, we nonetheless find that BM Co. adequately preserved for appeal its challenge regarding proposed Instruction Number 23.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Furthermore, we find the court}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s error with regard to Instruction Number 23 forms a separate ground supporting a new trial as to BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s claims for additional work.}{\cs15\super\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain 
\qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid8073574 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid8073574 
 Our holding on this issue does not support a new trial for any portion of the $42,020.00 which does not represent items of additional work.  }}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [27]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab 
In order to preserve for appeal a challenge to a jury instruction, the challenging party must have clearly stated to the trial court the matter to which the party objects and the grounds for that objection.}{\insrsid672624  }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Guam R. Civ. P. 51 (}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider the verdict, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the ground of the objection.}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 ); }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Jardien v. Winston Network, Inc.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
, 888 F.2d}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 1151, 1156-57 (7th Cir. 1989) (finding that in order to assign error for a lower court}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s failure to give an instruction, the party }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
must have objected thereto before the jury retired to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 ).}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Moreover, to preserve an objection to a given instruction, }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [t]he objecting party must do more than submit a proposed instruction to the trial court.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Dawson v. New York Life Ins. Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 135 F.3d 1158, 1165 (7th Cir. 1998). }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 The mere tender of an alternative instruction without objecting to some specific error in the trial court}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s charge or explaining why the proffered instruction better states the law does not preserve the error on appeal.}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Campbell v. Vinjamuri}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
, 19 F.3d 1274, 1277 (8th Cir. 1994) (quoting }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Farmland Indus. v. Frazier-Parrott Commodities, Inc.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
, 871 F.2d 1402, 1408 (8th Cir. 1989) (holding that the appellant failed to preserve his objection on appeal because he failed to specifically object to the court}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s refusal to use his proffered instruction).}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 The }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 failure to object in the most specific language will not waive the argument for appeal [only] if the objecting party}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s position is clear to the judge and further objection would be unavailing.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Dawson}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 135 F.3d at 1165.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [28]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab BM Co. asserts that the trial court rejected its proposed jury instructions on the ground that they were inadequate statements of the law.}{\insrsid672624  }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 However, BM Co. has failed to cite any portion of the record which shows that BM Co. both objected to the trial court}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt
\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s refusal of its proposed instructions and stated the grounds for its objection.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 It is the appellant}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL
 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s duty to submit an adequate record on appeal and identify portions of the record to support the argument.}{\insrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
See Guam Bar Ethics Committee}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 2001 Guam 20 at }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  39.}{\insrsid672624  }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Parties should not expect the court to find the proverbial needle in a haystack.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Nonetheless, the court has reviewed the voluminous record}{
\cs15\super\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 \fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid8073574 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid8073574 
 The record in this case consists of eight volumes of transcripts of the lower court proceedings, totaling over 1,300 pages, and designated documents totaling nearly 1,000 pages.}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
 and finds that BM Co. did not preserve its challenge to the court}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s decision r
ejecting proposed Instruction Number 8, but properly preserved its challenge to the trial court}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s decision regarding proposed Instruction No. 23.}{\insrsid672624 
\par 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [29]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab While our independent review of the record shows that BM Co. submitted proposed}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Instruction Number 8, }{
\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 see }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Appellant}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s Excerpts of Record, tab O (Plaintiff}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s Proposed General Voir Dire Questions and Jury Instructions, May 8, 2000), our review does not reveal that the proper objection was made to the given instruction, which was designated as Instruction Number 3O.}{\insrsid672624  }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 The mere fact that BM Co. proposed alternative language, and that the trial court rejected the proposed instruction, is inadequate to preserve this issue for appeal.}{\insrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 See}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  GRCP 51;}{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  Jardien}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 888 F.2d at 1157 (holding that the defendant}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s failure to object to the court}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s refusal of a proposed instruction amounted to a waiver of that issue on appeal).}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Furthermore, the record before us does not support a finding that BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s objection to Instruction Number 8, as given, was clearly before the tr
ial court to the extent that further objection would be unavailing.}{\cs15\super\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \chftn {\footnote \pard\plain \qj \fi720\li0\ri0\sa240\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0 
\fs24\lang1033\langfe1033\cgrid\langnp1033\langfenp1033 {\cs15\super\insrsid8073574 \chftn }{\fs20\insrsid8073574  Note that }{\i\fs20\insrsid8073574 the}{\fs20\insrsid8073574  }{\i\fs20\insrsid8073574 Averys}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 
 submitted an objection to BM Co.}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 s proposed Instruction Number 8.  }{\i\fs20\insrsid8073574 See }{\fs20\insrsid8073574 
Record on Appeal, tab 181, pp. 4-5 (Defendant}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 s Objection to Plaintiff}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 10}{\fldrslt\f36\fs20}}}{\fs20\insrsid8073574 s Proposed Jury Instructions, May 17, 2002).  However, we have not found anything in the record which contain an argument }{\i\fs20\insrsid8073574 by BM Co. }{\fs20\insrsid8073574 
as to why its proposed instruction should be adopted in place of the given instruction.}}}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
While the proper objection may have in fact been made, BM Co. has neither presented this court with a record that such was the case, nor indicated where in the record the objection was made.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
Accordingly, we decline to hypothesize on whether the objection was made and find that the BM Co. has waived any challenge to that decision on appeal.}{\insrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 See Guam Bar Ethics Committee}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 2001 Guam 20 at }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 38 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  39, n.10 (}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
{\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 A party}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s failure to provide a sufficient record may preclude review of the issue.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid672624 ).}{
\insrsid8073574 
\par }{\insrsid672624\charrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [30]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab However, the record shows that BM Co. clearly stated its reasons underlying its proposed Jury Instruction No. 23.}{\insrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Compare }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Record on Appeal, tab 170 (Plaintiff}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s Proposed Jury Instructions, May 15, 2000), }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 with }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Record on Appeal, tab 171, pp. 1-3 (Plaintiff}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s Brief re Constructive Changes, May 15, 2002).}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Therefore, the issue is properly before us.
\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [31]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab A trial court has wide discretion as to what instruction to give the jury in any case. }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 See}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  }{
\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Anderson v. Alfa-Laval Agri, Inc}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 ., 564 N.W.2d 788, 792 (Wis. Ct. App. 1997); }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 In re V.L.K}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
., 24 S.W.3d 338, 343-44 (Tex. 2000). On review, the inquiry is whether the jury was likely misled by the instruction given and whether a different outcome would likely have resulted had the proposed instruction been given. }{
\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 See}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 ., 1993 WL 470426, at *4; }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Anderson}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 564 N.W.2d at 793.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Here, the issue is whether the trial court erred in completely rejecting proposed Instruction Number 23 without giving an alternate instruction.
\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [32]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab As stated previously, BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s proposed Instruction No. 23 provided:}{\insrsid8073574 
\par }{\insrsid672624\charrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 If you find that the Averys or AES required BM Co. to perform extra o
r additional work that was not actually required by the contract and for which a change order should have been issued, then you may award BM Co. damages even though no change order was actually issued.
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par Record on Appeal, tab 170 (Plaintiff}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s Proposed Jury Instructions, May 15, 2000).}{\insrsid672624  }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 The trial court rejected this instruction and gave no modified or alternative instruction in its place.}{\insrsid8073574 
\par }{\insrsid672624\charrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [33]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab BM Co. argues its proposed jury instruction was an accurate recitation of the law governing construction contracts and therefore should have been submitted to the jury.}{
\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 BM Co. further contends that had the instruction been given, the jury would have awarded BM Co. the amounts claimed for additional work because the evidence supported the award.}{\insrsid672624  }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
In addition, BM Co. argues that the instructions actually given did not sufficiently advise the jury that BM Co. could recover if it found that BM Co. had performed work pursuant to an oral agreement with the Averys or the architect. 
\par }{\b\insrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [34]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab Generally, a trial court}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s decision to reject a requested instruction will be upheld even where the court could have given an instruction that was of more assistance to the jury, if the instruction actually g
iven accurately and sufficiently instructed the jury of the law to be applied. }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 See}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Anderson}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 564 N.W.2d at 792-93. }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 As long as the instructions advise the jury as to the law it is to apply, the court has the disc
retion to decline to give other instructions even though they may properly state the law to be applied.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  }
{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Id}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 . at 792 (citation omitted).}{\insrsid8073574 
\par }{\insrsid672624\charrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [35]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab With the above principles in mind, we find that the trial court erred in rejecting proposed Instruction No. 23.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
The crux of BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s claim is that it should be able to recover for additional work even in the absence of a written change order if the conduct of the parties or other evidence suggest that the parties agreed to the work.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
Proposed Instruction Number 23 adequately encapsulates the law in this area, which has been articulated as follows:
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qj \li720\ri720\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin720\lin720\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 A provision in a private building or construction contract that alterat
ions or extras must be ordered in writing can be avoided by the parties to the contract when their words, acts, or conduct amount to a waiver, modification, rescission, abrogation, or abandonment of the provision, or when the owner . . . by his or her act
s or conduct is estopped from reliance on it. 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par 13 A}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 M}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 . J}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 UR}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 . 2}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 D}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
Building and Construction Contracts}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 39 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  23 (2000).}{\insrsid672624  }{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Additionally, whether such a waiver, rescission, or modification occurred is a factual issue for the jury to decide. }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 See Cascade Elec.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
, 245 N.W.2d at 776 (citing }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Klas}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 168 N.W. at 427).}{\insrsid8073574 
\par }{\insrsid672624\charrsid672624 
\par }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [36]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab Considering that the proposed instruction recited 
a legally cognizable theory of recovery, the jury should have been given some instruction as to the recoverability for additional work done without a change order should the jury find that the written change order requirement was in any way waived or resc
inded by the parties.}{\insrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 See Consol. Fed. Corp.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
, 394 S.E.2d at 607 (holding that the trial court did not err in instructing the jury on the rule regarding waiver of written change order requirements) (citations omitted); }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 see also}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  }{
\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Pioneer Roofing Co. v. Mardian Constr. Co}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
., 733 P.2d 652, 666 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1986) (holding that it is proper for the trial court to instruct the jury on the waiver doctrine, where the underlying theory of the doctrine is supported by evidence that the parties waived the writing requ
irement) (citations omitted).}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 The principle set forth in proposed Instruction No. 23 was not substantially covered by any other given instruction.}{\insrsid672624  }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
See Smoky, Inc. v. McCray}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 396 S.E.2d 794, 800 (Ga. Ct. App. 1990).}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Accordingly, we find that an instructi
on on the waiver theory governing recovery for additional work was necessary as indicated by the facts of the case, and that it was an abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse to give }{\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 any}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  instruction to this end.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Such failure prejudiced BM Co. and therefore warrants a new trial as to its affirmative claims for damages for additional work.}{\insrsid672624  }{
\i\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 See Dawson}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 , 135 F.3d at 1165 (}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 65 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
If the misleading instruction did prejudice the complaining party, then the proper remedy is a new trial.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 64 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid672624 
) (citations omitted).}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
\par 
\par }\pard \qc \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 IV.}{\b\insrsid8073574 
\par }\pard \ql \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid672624\charrsid672624 
\par }\pard \qj \li0\ri0\nowidctlpar\faauto\rin0\lin0\itap0\pararsid672624 {\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 [37]}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 \tab In accordance with the foregoing, we find that the trial court did not err in rejecting BM Co.}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s motion to alter or amend the judgment with regard to its affirmative claims for damages.}{\insrsid672624 
 }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 We therefore }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 AFFIRM}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  the court}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s decision on that motion. We further find that trial court erroneously overlooked material evidence which supported the grant of BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s motion for a new trial, thereby warranting a new trial as to BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols"
 \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s affirmative claim for damages.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Accordingly, we find that the trial court abused its discretion in denying BM Co.}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s motion for a new trial on its affirmative claims for damages and therefore }{
\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 REVERSE}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624  that decision.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 Additionally, we find that the lower court}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f 
"WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s rejection of BM Co.}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
s proposed Instruction No. 23, covering the law regarding waiver of a contract writing requirement, and the court}{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 {\field{\*\fldinst SYMBOL 61 \\f "WP TypographicSymbols" \\s 12}{\fldrslt\f36\fs24}}}{
\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 s failure to give an alternate instruction, amounts to an abuse of discretion.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
We therefore find that BM Co. is entitled to a new trial on the portion of its affirmative claims for damages that represent additional work performed on the contract and }{\b\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 REVERSE }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 
the lower court judgment to that extent.}{\insrsid672624  }{\insrsid8073574\charrsid672624 The findings made herein supplement the Opinion issued on December 27, 2001.}{\insrsid672624 
\par }}