When there has been substantial performance, the measure of recovery is the amount stipulated in the agreement less the reasonable cost of remedying defects and omissions to make the building conform to the contract. Klein v. Moore, 202 Okla. 88, 210 P.2d 363; Busboom v. Smith, 199 Okla. 688, 191 P.2d 198, and cases there cited. In Lane v. F.S. Miller Lumber Co., 101 Okla. 14, 222 P. 968, 969, the court quoted with approval from Kelley v. Hamilton, 78 Okla. 179, 189 P. 535, as follows:

"There is substantial performance when the builder has in good faith intended to perform his part of the contract and has done so in the sense that the building is substantially what is provided for, and there are no omissions or deviations from the general plan which cannot be remedied without difficulty. * * *" (Emphasis ours). In Bushboom v. Smith, 199 Okla. 688, 191 P.2d 198, we said: "* * * In such case the judgment should make such monetary award to the injured party as would place him in the position he would have been had the contract been performed, but it should not put him in a better position then he would have been had there been complete performance."

In Gallaspy v. Warner, Okla., 324 P.2d 848, is the following language: "The concluding part of the opinion is Busboom v. Smith, 199 Okla. 688, 191 P.2d 198, 201, states: "`The judgment of the trial court being clearly erroneous as to the amount awarded defendant, as hereinbefore pointed out, may be corrected by this court on appeal.

It thus appears that the judgment was clearly excessive, and that the amount for which judgment should have been rendered is definitely and satisfactorily shown by the record. We are asked by each party to modify the judgment in accordance with the respective theories advanced, and it is conceded that we have authority to do so. 12 O.S. 1961 § 952[ 12-952]; Busboom v. Smith, 199 Okla. 688, 191 P.2d 198; Stumpf v. Stumpf, 173 Okla. 1, 46 P.2d 315. We are of the opinion that the judgment of the trial court for plaintiffs should be, and it is hereby, modified and reduced to the sum of $300.00, and as so modified it is affirmed.

When the verdict of the jury and the judgment entered thereon separately state the different items of damage, some of which are correct and one or more erroneous, this court is not required to reverse the judgment and direct a new trial but has authority to modify the judgment of the trial court by striking therefrom the erroneous portion or portions and entering judgment for the correct amount. See Leeper v. Patton, 91 Okla. 12, 215 P. 421; Simpson v. Butts, 99 Okla. 168, 226 P. 332; Spaulding Mfg. Co. v. Cooksey, supra; and Busboom v. Smith, 199 Okla. 688, 191 P.2d 198. The judgment of the trial court is therefore modified by striking therefrom the item of $400, the value allowed plaintiff for the heating unit by the verdict and judgment, and allowing the full contract price of $800, such amount to be offset by the remaining judgment in favor of defendant for $768, and judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiff for $32, and as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The correct amount for which judgment should have been awarded the plaintiff, Warner, is therefore $9,375, plus $387.45 interest on past due royalty not yet received, less $1,875.75 discount on future royalty installments not yet due, or the sum of $7,886.70. The concluding part of the opinion in Busboom v. Smith, 199 Okla. 688, 191 P.2d 198, 201, states: "The judgment of the trial court being clearly erroneous as to the amount awarded defendant, as hereinbefore pointed out, may be corrected by this court on appeal.

In such cases, as considered herein, the rule is of long standing that where a contractor or builder has in good faith endeavored to perform everything required of him under the terms of the contract for construction, and has in fact substantially performed same, he is entitled to the contract price, less proper deductions for omissions, defects or deviations chargeable to him, particularly where the owner occupies and uses the building. See Busboom v. Smith, 199 Okla. 688, 191, P.2d 198 and authorities cited. Judgment affirmed.

The cost rule of damages has been applied by courts in various instances where the defects were in floors, walls, and roofs. See: Bernbaum v. Hodges, 43 Wn.2d 503, 261 P.2d 968 (1953); Busboom v. Smith, 199 Okla. 688, 191 P.2d 198 (1948); Loggins v. Gates, 301 S.W.2d 525 (Tex.Civ.App. 1957); Davis v. Stow, 60 So.2d 630 (Fla. 1952); Shell v. Schmidt, 164 Cal.App.2d 350, 330 P.2d 817, 76 A.L.R.2d 792 (1958); Phipps v. Lopinsky, 97 W. Va. 547, 125 S.E. 250 (1924); Springer v. Jones, 76 Ind. App. 269, 123 N.E. 816 (1919); Nees v. Weaver, 222 Wis. 492, 269 N.W. 266, 107 A.L.R. 1405 (1936). The value rule comes into play only when the defects cannot be remedied to conform to the contract without substantial destruction of the building, i.e., such destruction as would amount to "economic waste."