Home Page link

Can general contractor raise price after house is finished?

Architecture and Design - Building design/construction and related topics. 

Page 4 of 7       < 1 2 3 > last >> Bookmark this page:  YahooMyWeb Yahoo!  Google Google  Windows Live Favorites Windows Live  del.icio.us del.icio.us  digg digg  Add to Netscape Netscape
Subject Author Date
Can general contractor raise price after house is finished? HappyHumanist 06-23-2007
If you were  Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
Posted by Dave on June 24, 2007, 12:32 am
All boils down to what you signed, not what the contractor or you say or
think.
Dave

> Our house (in Wisconsin) is finished. According to the bid we
> accepted, we owe one final payment of $60,000 ($53,000 plus $7,000 to
> account for change requests during the construction process) to our
> general contractor. Now, right at the end, he suddenly says we owe
> him $73,000. He says if we don't pay it, he's going to sue us. Can
> he doe this to us? Here are his reasons:
>
> 1. His estimates were inaccurate, and some of his sources for
> material and labor ended up charging him more than he expected.
>
> 2. We bothered him with a lot of changes and supervision.
>
> 3. Our house is worth a lot more than we're paying him.
>
> 4. The house too him longer to build than he expected, and so he had
> to pay a lot more for labor than he expected.
>
> Here are my answers to him on each of the four issues:
>
> 1. Regarding his costs exceeding his estimates... We had an oral
> agreement in the beginning that once we agreed on a project and
> accepted his bid that the bid would not change--up or down. If we
> made changes (we did make minor changes), we would be responsible for
> our changes. If market prices on materials were to fall, we agreed
> that he would enjoy the savings, but if prices went up, he would
> suffer the extra charges. He called this "locking in," and that is
> one of the main reasons we went with this contractor. On the detailed
> written bid he provided us, and which we subsequently accepted, he
> even wrote his "lock in" promise at the bottom--a few sentences.
> Other than these written documents and or oral contract, we have no
> official contract with him.
>
> 2. Regarding his claim that we bothered him with changes and
> supervision... He never once discouraged this or said that there
> would be extra charges, other than the cost of the actual changes,
> which we are agreeing to pay--$7,000 for specific changes bringing the
> total due up to $60,000. But he wants $73,000! As for his claim that
> we bothered him with a lot of supervision and faxed notes... He never
> discouraged this, and the only reason for the close supervision and
> notes was because his crew made a *LOT* of mistakes that had to be
> corrected. The work was very substandard. All of this is
> documented. I think our supervision and notes actually helped them
> get through the job and finish it the way we intended it to be
> finished. They were very unprofessional.
>
> 3. Regarding his claim that our house is worth a lot so we should pay
> a lot... Why should we be penalized because we came up with a great
> design and made wise choices for materials and features? He offered
> us a bid in the beginning, and we accepted. Now, because the house is
> very attractive (mostly because of the land and neighborhood), why
> should he be entitled to more money? His complaint is that he didn't
> charge enough initially, and now he's going to lose at least $30,0000,
> and that we should have to pay for his losses because our house only
> cost us $290,000 and it's worth about $450,000. First of all, I think
> it's worth $350,000 at the most, and even if it was worth $450,000,
> that would be like a mechanic complaining because he sold us an engine
> for $5,000 and we put it in a car we bought for $7,000, and now that
> car is now worth $20,000--too bad, right?
>
> 4. Regarding his claim that the house took longer to build than
> expected... Isn't that his fault? The reason it took longer is
> because his crew are slow, lazy, and inept. They made a lot of
> mistakes that they had to fix. Likewise, everything based on time
> cost about double--the dumpster, the crane, etc. In fact, this
> actually cost us money, because we paid four months longer than
> expected on our construction loan without being able to live in the
> house--shouldn't we be entitled for some compensation for that?
>
> This is all causing us a lot of stress, and it sounds like it's going
> to cost us a lot of legal fees now, too. I feel violated. What can
> we do? Please advise. Any helpful information would be greatly
> appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> Unhappy
>



Posted by Tony on June 24, 2007, 7:05 am

> All boils down to what you signed, not what the contractor or you say or
> think.
> Dave

Hello
In a court the contractor would be entitled to fair market value for his
services.
In construction 13,000 is not a LOT of money, just depends on the work I
guess.

I'd pay the extra 13, not say, aha! you didn't put it in writing.

if contractor is getting fair market value, then 13,000 will come in quick
(he should have no problem showing the court 13,000 $'s of extra work)
it could run into 10's of extra 1,000's fast.

-



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Posted by Dave on June 24, 2007, 11:29 am
>
>> All boils down to what you signed, not what the contractor or you say or
>> think.
>> Dave
>
> Hello
> In a court the contractor would be entitled to fair market value for his
> services.
> In construction 13,000 is not a LOT of money, just depends on the work I
> guess.
>
> I'd pay the extra 13, not say, aha! you didn't put it in writing.
>
> if contractor is getting fair market value, then 13,000 will come in quick
> (he should have no problem showing the court 13,000 $'s of extra work)
> it could run into 10's of extra 1,000's fast.
>

So you're saying a contractor can provide a contract to build whatever.
Intentionally or unintentionally, misstate the costs in terms of fair market
value of services provided in that contract. Call those cost overruns, and
win in court for those so called cost overruns... Doesn't sound like
contract law to me.

Seems the buyer should be able to recover the same with service costs if
less in the area. Not... Don't hold water.
Dave



Posted by Tony on June 24, 2007, 11:51 am
no, you're missing the point
the point is, the owner here is to the benefit of some structure built by
the contractor
that structure has a fair market replacement value

seems I remember the owner bragging about the value of his home
how people who live in big houses don't put up with shit from generals like
his

something about the community? he lives in?




> >
> >> All boils down to what you signed, not what the contractor or you say
or
> >> think.
> >> Dave
> >
> > Hello
> > In a court the contractor would be entitled to fair market value for his
> > services.
> > In construction 13,000 is not a LOT of money, just depends on the work I
> > guess.
> >
> > I'd pay the extra 13, not say, aha! you didn't put it in writing.
> >
> > if contractor is getting fair market value, then 13,000 will come in
quick
> > (he should have no problem showing the court 13,000 $'s of extra work)
> > it could run into 10's of extra 1,000's fast.
> >
>
> So you're saying a contractor can provide a contract to build whatever.
> Intentionally or unintentionally, misstate the costs in terms of fair
market
> value of services provided in that contract. Call those cost overruns,
and
> win in court for those so called cost overruns... Doesn't sound like
> contract law to me.
>
> Seems the buyer should be able to recover the same with service costs if
> less in the area. Not... Don't hold water.
> Dave
>
>
>



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

Posted by Art on June 24, 2007, 3:47 pm
Tony wrote:
>> All boils down to what you signed, not what the contractor or you say or
>> think.
>> Dave
>
> Hello
> In a court the contractor would be entitled to fair market value for his
> services.
> In construction 13,000 is not a LOT of money, just depends on the work I
> guess.
>
> I'd pay the extra 13, not say, aha! you didn't put it in writing.
>
> if contractor is getting fair market value, then 13,000 will come in quick
> (he should have no problem showing the court 13,000 $'s of extra work)
> it could run into 10's of extra 1,000's fast.
>


Your argument assumes that "fair market value for services" equals "fair
market value of finished product", it does not.

--
Art

Page 4 of 7       < 1 2 3 > last >>
Similar ThreadsPosted
price burst view 3D June 8, 2007, 3:34 am
Book (general reading) Recommendation Question August 5, 2008, 12:21 pm
Sunroom Kit or Sunroom Contractor? June 20, 2007, 11:34 pm
Q: "hinge house"? January 30, 2007, 3:53 pm
New photos of our house February 20, 2007, 1:45 pm
Recordings of This Old House? April 21, 2007, 5:03 am
Newspaper "House" March 8, 2008, 8:11 pm
House Hunters May 19, 2008, 11:58 pm
Updates on the construction of our "new old house" January 21, 2007, 10:09 am
House Plan Ideas August 15, 2007, 3:21 pm

Contact Us | Privacy Policy

XML SitemapXML Sitemap