In Litchfield Const. Co. v. City of New York (244 N.Y. 251 [1926]) the court determined that "[c]hanges in the drawings might alter the manner in which such work was to be performed, but changes in the drawings could not change the description of the work itself as contained in the contract" (id.). Therefore, because the spur was described in the contract, the court reasoned that "it is part of the work as described in the contract which the contractor was bound to do and which the city was bound to pay for" and denied the recovery of damages (id.). Additionally, during bidding, the contractor was warned that the estimated approximate quantities of the work were approximate, and only for the purpose of comparing on a uniform basis the bids offered for the work. On this basis the Court denied recovery for damages cause by "overestimation."