In Opdyke & Butler v. Silver (1952) 111 Cal. App. 2d 912, plaintiffs alleged the parties had abandoned their written contract for a remodel construction project, replacing it with an oral contract adopting new plans and specifications for the work to be performed and agreeing plaintiffs would be compensated without regard to the written contract's maximum dollar amount. Plaintiffs had completed the work and sought to recover their costs plus 10 percent--some $ 12,000 more than the contract maximum. Affirming judgment for the plaintiffs, the Court of Appeal noted defendant admitted there had been at least 20 significant changes to the project, e.g., stairways changed after constructed, the entire lighting system changed to provide recessed lighting, ceilings lowered, partitions relocated, and adaptations implemented requiring removal and rerouting of pipes. All of the changes from the original plans and specifications had been made with defendant's knowledge and at his request. The court stated, "We think there can be no doubt that these numerous changes, some minor it is true but many of which must have interrupted the orderly progress of the work, materially increased the contractor's cost and forced the doing of the work under disadvantageous circumstances. These changes began even before the work was started, and evinced a high degree of uncertainty on the part of defendant as to what he wanted done. They show the early adoption and consistent use of a policy of demanding changes and even reconstruction after portions of the work were completed. This goes far toward supporting the soundness of the trial court's conclusion that the original contract was in fact abandoned." (Opdyke & Butler v. Silver, supra, 111 Cal. App. 2d at pp. 917-918.) The court further observed "the parties consistently ignored" the written contract's requirement "that all change orders should be approved by the architect, should be in writing, and the contract price should be adjusted accordingly before the work was done . . . ." (Id. at p. 918.) Summarizing material changes of broad scope regarding numerous aspects of the work to be done, the Opdyke court stated, "Without going further into the details of evidence, it does appear that from a time even before the work had started and until the completion of the job, the parties had in many respects disregarded the terms of the written contract; that defendant had arrogated to himself the right to make sweeping changes without arriving at cost and, in short, that he completely took over the minute directing of work to be done, whether it complied with the plans and specifications attached to the written agreement or not. One result was that the cost to the contractor must have been greatly increased so as to make it unfair that, having dictated what was to be done without bothering to agree upon the price, defendant should now be permitted to plead the maximum price provision of the written contract which he himself had made inapplicable and unjust." (Opdyke & Butler v. Silver, supra, 111 Cal.App.2d at p. 919.) The Opdyke court concluded, "We think that the trial court was well justified in determining that, by the course of conduct which the parties adopted, they abandoned the price limitation and proceeded upon a straight cost plus basis. That is all that is necessary to warrant the upholding of the judgment." (Ibid.)