Hathaway Development Co., Inc. Hathaway, a general contractor specializing in wood frame construction, appeals from the trial court’s judgment, following a bench trial, in favor of its subcontractor Advantage Fire Sprinkler Co., Inc. Advantage on Advantage’s claims for breach of contract and for recovery for extra work under quantum meruit. When the trial court sits as the trier of fact, its findings and conclusions have the effect of a jury verdict. See Wilson v. Prudential Indus. Properties , 276 Ga. App. 180 1 622 SE2d 890 2005, citing McCain v. Galloway , 267 Ga. App. 505 600 SE2d 449 2004. Thus, we will not disturb the trial court’s decision if there is any evidence to support it. Oates v. Sea Island Bank , 172 Ga. App. 178 1 322 SE2d 291 1984. Additionally, “we do not determine witness credibility or weigh the evidence and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the trial court’s judgment.” Citation omitted. Chamblee Hotels v. Chesterfield Mtg. Investors , 287 Ga. App. 342, 343 651 SE2d 447 2007.
So viewed, the evidence showed that Hathaway entered into two subcontracts with Advantage to install the sprinkler systems in two projects it was building, one in September 2003, for the Walden at Indian Creek Apartments in Huntsville, Alabama, and the second on November 5, 2003, for the Peachtree Hills Base Building in Atlanta. It is undisputed that work went smoothly on the Walden project and the sprinkler system was fully installed. According to Daniel Hathaway, vice president of Hathaway, Advantage “did everything it needed to do under that contract to get paid.” Nonetheless, because of the dispute which developed over the Peachtree Hills project, Advantage did not receive its final payment due on the Walden project.
