construction lien action and started an action against the other
respondents, Maria Fiume (the wife of Michael Fiume, the principal of Birkshire) and her company.
 The actions were tried together. The trial judge concluded
that the contract price was $122,565. After crediting the appellants for the amount they already paid, and for some deficiencies
and damages, he awarded Birkshire damages of $50,000, prejudgment interest of $13,398.24 and costs of $83,500. He recognized a lien on the property for the total amount of $146,898.24
and dismissed the action against Ms. Fiume and her company.
 The appellants raise three issues on appeal. It is sufficient for
the determination of the appeal to deal only with the first issue,
which concerns the trial judge’s failure to refer to the evidence of
two witnesses called by the appellants in his reasons for judgment.
 After the evidence was concluded, and on the day closing
arguments were to take place, the appellants brought a motion to
reopen the case so that two former employees of Birkshire could
testify. The motion was supported by affidavits from the two proposed witnesses setting out their intended evidence. Among other
things, one of the former employees, Chris Derewonko, claimed
that he built bathroom vanities at the Wilkes’ residence. He did
so based upon verbal instructions given to him by Ms. Fiume. Mr.
Derewonko maintained in his affidavit that “[a]fter the court
action began”, Mr. Fiume showed him a photograph of one of the
vanities and asked him to make a drawing from the photograph.
That drawing was attached as an exhibit to the Derewonko affidavit,
filed in support of the appellants’ request to reopen the case.
 The vanity drawing that Mr. Derewonko said he had prepared after the litigation began duplicated a drawing that had been
previously entered as an exhibit at trial. Ms. Fiume had testified
about the vanity drawings and suggested that they had been prepared and approved prior to the vanities being installed.
 In his ruling permitting the Wilkes to reopen their case to,
among other things, have Mr. Derewonko testify, the trial judge
noted that the proposed evidence bore on material issues at trial,
including the credibility of the respondents: “The evidence of
Chris Derewonko, if believed, raises credibility issues as they
relate to the evidence adduced by [the respondents] regarding
drawings that have been entered into evidence in this trial.”
 The parties disagree about the import of Mr. Derewonko’s
viva voce evidence at trial. The respondents maintain that his
evidence is unclear and difficult to follow from the transcript.
Although we agree that Mr. Derewonko’s evidence is not a model
of clarity, it is clear that he testified that he had been asked by Mr.
Fiume a couple of years before he testified (being at least a few