The appellants, acting as a general contractor, appealed a trial judgment awarding the respondent electrical contractor payment for certain extras.
The appellants argued the trial judge erred in law by finding that formal approval or documentation was not required for the extras.
The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial judge's conclusion was a finding of mixed fact and law based on the parties' course of dealing, and there was no palpable and overriding error.
Costs were awarded to the self-represented respondent.
