|
Posted by RicodJour on May 17, 2008, 9:37 am
On May 17, 8:44 am, "Dioclese" <NONE> wrote:
> Well, apparently assumption is your basis for your reply. From the git-go,
> the contractor at final signing failed to go over the actual plans with me
> and provide a copy of those plans. This was noted as part of the final
> sign-offs before work was to begin. I never got a copy.
You should have stopped it right there. Allowing someone to proceed
with the work before you're in full agreement on what's to be done is
shooting yourself in the foot with a slow bullet. Letting someone
slide on a critical issue in the early going sets up a bad tone for
communication for the rest of the project. If you can't agree on
things when it's just paper, you'll never agree when it's set in stone/
concrete/wood/shingles.
Your situation has nothing at all to do with the OP's situation...the
OP from the original thread (Rose apparently decided to start this new
thread so their blog advertisement would show up better). The OP was
happy with the contractor and just objected to the advertising after
the fact. You were frustrated with the contractor and burned the sign
in retaliation. You also wrote in the earlier post that you removed
and burned the sign without hesitation, then in your most recent post
you mentioned that you removed the sign only after a few weeks of
contractor friction.
R
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
> Well, apparently assumption is your basis for your reply. From the git-go,
> the contractor at final signing failed to go over the actual plans with me
> and provide a copy of those plans. This was noted as part of the final
> sign-offs before work was to begin. I never got a copy.