These two matters were consolidated for trial in the district court and for argument here. Harold Vicknair is the defendant in both suits. Necaise, Inc. is the plaintiff in suit No. 10,836 of our docket, and Sam Junda, d/b/a S. J. Junda Enterprises, is plaintiff in suit No. 10,837 of our docket. Both suits seek the alleged balances due on building and/or repair work performed by plaintiffs on Vicknair’s immovable property.
Vicknair’s defense in the Necaise suit is that the contract was performed in an un-workmanlike manner. His defense in the Junda suit is that Junda was a subcontractor of Necaise and should look to Necaise for payment. Vicknair also filed a third party demand against Necaise in the Junda suit and a reconventional demand in the Necaise suit.
Following trial, separate judgments were rendered, both against Vicknair. Necaise was awarded $986.30 and Junda was awarded $2,192. Vicknair has appealed from both judgments.
The Junda-Vicknair Contract
On June 7,1977 Vicknair accepted a written proposal by Junda to install aluminum gutters, aluminum soffets and fascia, remove an existing wooden window and replace it with an aluminum window, cap all window casings, and install a large picture window, all at a cost of $2,192. Junda completed its work for Vicknair under this contract but was not paid. Its suit against defendant is for $2,192, the full amount of the contract.
The Necaise-Vicknair Contracts
On June 7, 1977 Necaise proposed to take off Vicknair’s old roof, tear down and haul away a drop roof, repair a sag in the roof, install a new roof on one side, install rafters, and sheeting for a new roof, frame sidewalls, and block in existing walls for the sum of $4,843.
Apparently Vicknair was satisfied with this work because he paid Necaise in full, and on July 8, 1977 again contracted with Necaise for an addition and interior work to the existing structure of his home at a cost of $24,863. The contract provided for payments of 50% upon signing, 40% upon completion of the new addition and 10% on completion of the inside of the existing structure. During the course of this work Vicknair requested extra work of Necaise as follows: Installation of two storm doors, caping a beam on the carport, and covering the following: 1) the carport ceiling, 2) an offset overhang, and 3) a rear gable with aluminum siding.
Necaise asked Junda to bid on this extra work and accepted Junda’s bid of $1,050. Later Vicknair requested an additional window at a cost of $150. The window was made by Junda and installed by Necaise but later removed because Mrs. Vicknair was dissatisfied. Necaise paid Junda $1,200 for all of these extras (including the additional window).
When the July 8 contract with Necaise was completed Vicknair had made all of the payments called for thereunder with the exception of the final payment of $2,486.30.
The Junda Judgment (No. 10,887)
In this court appellant contends that the trial court erred in: (1) failing to find plaintiff a subcontractor of Necaise; (2) dismissing the third party demand; and, alternatively, (3) that the judgment should be reduced to $2,042, the balance appellant claims is due if we find the first two contentions are without merit.
Relative to appellant’s first contention, the trial court examined the two June 7 contracts and found the contract in the instant case was one between plaintiff Jun-da and defendant Vicknair and not one between Necaise and plaintiff Junda. In his Reasons for Judgment the trial judge said: “Dissimilarity of the items in the Ne-caise, Inc. contract with the items in plaintiff’s contract make it apparent that Ne-caise, Inc. did not contract to perform the *1349work contemplated in plaintiff’s contract and would not have reason to subcontract to plaintiff work that Necaise was not called upon to perform.”
From our examination of these contracts and the testimony of Vicknair, Ron Smith and Robert Necaise (president of Ne-caise, Inc.), we conclude, as did the trial court, that the June 7 contract between Junda and Vicknair formed no part of the agreements between Vicknair and Necaise. We agree that Junda was not a Necaise subcontractor.
In connection with appellant’s second contention, we conclude the trial court was correct in dismissing Vicknair’s third party demand because Junda was not a Necaise subcontractor and because the setoff for unworkmanlike performance was resolved in the suit filed by Necaise, with which resolution we also agree.
Appellant’s third (and alternative) contention, that the Junda judgment should be reduced from the sum of $2,192 to $2,040, is based upon the fact that the extras Junda made for Necaise (in connection with the Necaise-Vicknair contract of July, 1977) cost only $1,050, but Necaise paid Junda $1,200. Defendant Vicknair wants the advantage of the Necaise overpayment of $150. That overpayment was for the $150 window Mrs. Vicknair subsequently returned.
The trial court apparently concluded that the overpayment by Necaise to Junda was a matter between those two corporations and that Vicknair, having admitted he paid Junda nothing under the June 7 contract (his only agreement with Junda), owed Junda the full amount of that contract, of $2,192. We find no error in that conclusion.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from in the Junda matter (suit No. 10,837 of our docket) is affirmed.
The Necaise Judgment (No. 10,836)
Defendant withheld the final payment of 10% of the July 8, 1977 contract price, or $2,486.30 (the amount sued for) for unwork-manlike performance. Vicknair claims the cost of labor and materials to correct the alleged defects amounted to $5,920.31, and he reconvened for a setoff in that amount.
Defendant testified on his own behalf and expert testimony was given by Curry Roberts, a carpenter, James Carter, an architect, and Michael Sackett, a repair and remodeling contractor. Plaintiff produced Robert Landry, a carpenter, who worked on the job for Necaise. Vicknair testified at length about omissions and deficiencies and Landry testified the contract was performed in a workmanlike manner despite hassless and innumerable changes demanded by defendant and his wife.
Relying primarily on the expert testimony, the trial court found there were deficiencies. However, the defendant’s witnesses differed in the number of defects present and the cost of their repair. Curry Roberts estimated the cost of repair at $5,920.31. Michael Sackett estimated the cost of repair at $1,500 and agreed to make the listed repairs for that amount, and James Carter, the architect, testified to re-' pairs costing $769.
The repairs consisted principally of brick work, ceiling tiles, adjustment of doors, and items of a minor nature. Although defendant complains a self-cleaning oven was not provided, the evidence establishes defendant and his wife ordered the kitchen cabinets and stove themselves, and that a picture window was delivered but not installed because the wife was dissatisfied.
The trial court considered Roberts’ estimate of defects and the cost of repair to be excessive and accepted Saekett’s estimate as correct. Thus, it reduced defendant’s demand of $2,486.30 by $1,500 and granted plaintiff a judgment of $986.30.
Appellant contends the testimony of Roberts should have been given greater weight. Our settled jurisprudence is that expert testimony is to be weighed by the trier of fact in the same manner as other *1350evidence.1 The weight of opinion testimony is determined by the professional qualification and experience of the expert and the findings upon which his opinion is based.2 Where the testimony of experts differs, a conclusion thereon is largely a matter of credibility, and a finding in this regard by the trial judge will not be overturned absent manifest error.3 We find no manifest error here.
For the reasons assigned, the judgment appealed from in the Necaise matter (suit No. 10,836 of our docket) is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
REDMANN, J., dissents with written reasons.