Opinion ID: 1169482
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the requirement for prior written authorization for a change was waived

Text: The Nebraska case quoted by the majority opinion, Erskine v. Johnson, 23 Neb. 261, 36 N.W. 510 (1888), to substantiate the authority of appellee to bind the city in authorizing a change order, stated at 36 N.W. page 512: Considerable stress is laid by the attorney of Erskine upon that portion of the written contract which provides that `no work of any kind shall be considered as extra unless expressly contracted for in writing before its commencement.' This provision may be waived by the parties by any contract, either verbal or written, subsequently made, which modified its condition.    This is the general rule: The provision in a private building or construction contract (whether between a property owner and a contractor or between a general contractor and a subcontractor) that alterations or extras must be ordered in writing can be avoided by the parties to the contract where their words, acts, or conduct amount to a waiver, modification, rescission, abrogation, or abandonment of such provision, or where the owner (or the general contractor in the case of a subcontract) by his acts or conduct is estopped to rely on it.    Anno., Effect of stipulation, in private building or construction contract, that alterations or extras must be ordered in writing, 2 A.L.R.3d 620, 648 (1965). See Snowball v. Maney Bros. & Co., supra. When appellee directed appellant to do the extra work, appellant was told to keep track of costs and expenses. Appellant had performed extra work at other times on the project without prior written approval  and he had no trouble securing payment. He testified: As Reiman Construction Co. asked me to perform extra work, I would invoice it. They would pay me for the invoices. Every extra that I performed up to the time of this discrepancy was paid for. The habitual disregard of the requirement amounted to a waiver of it. Harrington v. McCarthy, 91 Idaho 307, 420 P.2d 790 (1966); Howard J. White, Inc. v. Varian Associates, 178 Cal. App.2d 348, 2 Cal. Rptr. 871 (1960); Arc & Gas Welder Associates, Inc. v. Green Fuel Economizer Co., 285 F.2d 863 (4th Cir.1960), cert. denied 366 U.S. 919, 81 S.Ct. 1095, 6 L.Ed.2d 241 (1961). And, accepting the majority opinion's recognition of the authority of appellee to bind the city, his direction to do the work amounted to a waiver of the requirement for a written change order.