If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
|
Posted by consumer@yahoo.com on September 27, 2006, 9:20 pm
I am currently having a deck demolished and rebuilt for me by a local
contractor. He has taken every opportunity to charge me "extra" labor
costs. He pitched to me that he was a "master craftsman" with 26 years
experience.
He charged me 2 1/2 hours at $75 an hour to unload wood for the deck
and "examine" each piece. Please note I rented a fork-lift at my
expense and there were five batches of wood, so it could not have taken
more that 30 mins to actually unload the wood from the truck 75 feet to
my driveway.
He charged me $65 an hour for 10 hours since he says the existing (3)
posts were set deeper than he "could have anticipated" and thus he had
to rent a bigger jack hammer (at my expense) to dig them up (they were
set at about 3 feet depth). Interestingly, he then set his replacement
posts at the same depth of 3' so if he did this, why would he not
anticipate that the previous contractor might have done this as well?
Now he wants to charge me "extra" labor costs again to provide flashing
between the deck and the house which was not present. He tells me
that this should have been done originally. Well if this is the case
then shouldnt this be an anticipated step and not considered "extra"
labor.
Bottom line is how can the consumer protect themselves from the
contractor continually adding labor costs by claiming something is not
anticipated, or covered in the original bid? I imagine there is
virtually no job that there is not something that is not anticipated,
and without some type of specific language in the contract, the
contractor can use this to screw the consumer. Are there any consumer
friendly contractor contracts that people have, that I can use in the
future to prevent being continually screwed by a contractor.
|
|
Posted by mrsgator88 on September 27, 2006, 10:30 pm
OK, now we have a little more info. But lets have all of it.
1) Do you have a contract?
2) If so, what does the contract say?
3) If not, what were the verbal terms?
4) How big is the deck?
Any contract will be written to protect the contractor, since he has a lot
more to lose than you. To protect yourself, get written quotes because they
will also state the terms. A quote is often a contract just waiting for
your signature! Each will be different, so just reading them all you'll get
a little better idea of what you want or not in a contract. Remember, its
all negotiable.
Also, and nobody does this, have a construction lawyer look over the
contract. Things that seem obvious to you are not so obvious in a dispute.
For example, the payout schedule. Often this will be "payment of $xxx upon
completion of nnnn". At what point is something complete? When the
contractor says its complete? Or when he's passed inspection for what he's
completed? When are adjustments to payouts made? If you owe $xxx upon
completion of plumbing, and you supplied fixtures he was supposed to pay
for, do you adjust payment at that time or at the end? What if his 12 week
estimate turns into 12 months? What happens if he puts the posts a foot too
close together and now your deck is smaller than its supposed to be? What
if he abandons the job? Do you have a clause that defines abandonment, and
the consequences? What if he's a 65 year old sole proprietor and he dies
mid project? What happens to the advanced money? A good contsruction
lawyer will think of these things. A lawyer who doesn't think of these
things may be a good lawyer, but not a good construction lawyer.
S
>I am currently having a deck demolished and rebuilt for me by a local
> contractor. He has taken every opportunity to charge me "extra" labor
> costs. He pitched to me that he was a "master craftsman" with 26 years
> experience.
> He charged me 2 1/2 hours at $75 an hour to unload wood for the deck
> and "examine" each piece. Please note I rented a fork-lift at my
> expense and there were five batches of wood, so it could not have taken
> more that 30 mins to actually unload the wood from the truck 75 feet to
> my driveway.
> He charged me $65 an hour for 10 hours since he says the existing (3)
> posts were set deeper than he "could have anticipated" and thus he had
> to rent a bigger jack hammer (at my expense) to dig them up (they were
> set at about 3 feet depth). Interestingly, he then set his replacement
> posts at the same depth of 3' so if he did this, why would he not
> anticipate that the previous contractor might have done this as well?
> Now he wants to charge me "extra" labor costs again to provide flashing
> between the deck and the house which was not present. He tells me
> that this should have been done originally. Well if this is the case
> then shouldnt this be an anticipated step and not considered "extra"
> labor.
> Bottom line is how can the consumer protect themselves from the
> contractor continually adding labor costs by claiming something is not
> anticipated, or covered in the original bid? I imagine there is
> virtually no job that there is not something that is not anticipated,
> and without some type of specific language in the contract, the
> contractor can use this to screw the consumer. Are there any consumer
> friendly contractor contracts that people have, that I can use in the
> future to prevent being continually screwed by a contractor.
>
|
|
Posted by dpb on September 28, 2006, 11:34 am
mrsgator88 wrote:
...
> Any contract will be written to protect the contractor, since he has a lot
> more to lose than you. ...
The former is only true if the contract is biased in favor of the
contractor, not a general condition of "any contract". I don't see the
basis for the latter assertion, either.
That a contract favors one party over the other is not a tenet of
contract law--a good contract should protect both parties and be an
equitable sharing of both responsibility and risk and include, of
course, as detailed description of scope and individual
responsibilities, etc., as is practical. It is, in fact, possible for
a contract which is excessively one-sided to be held unenforceable for
that reason.
I'm certainly not a lawyer, but know at least some basics... :)
|
|
Posted by mrsgator88 on September 29, 2006, 12:46 am
> mrsgator88 wrote:
> ...
>> Any contract will be written to protect the contractor, since he has a
>> lot
>> more to lose than you. ...
> The former is only true if the contract is biased in favor of the
> contractor, not a general condition of "any contract". I don't see the
> basis for the latter assertion, either.
> That a contract favors one party over the other is not a tenet of
> contract law--a good contract should protect both parties and be an
> equitable sharing of both responsibility and risk and include, of
> course, as detailed description of scope and individual
> responsibilities, etc., as is practical. It is, in fact, possible for
> a contract which is excessively one-sided to be held unenforceable for
> that reason.
> I'm certainly not a lawyer, but know at least some basics... :)
I took two terms of business law, and I remember learning about how its
possible for contracts to be unenforceable. But stupidity is not a reason
to void a contract.
And I'm also in the tail end of an extensive building addition. I've seen
how its very possible for a contract to very much favor one side and be
perfectly legit and enforceable. Among other things, I got caught in the
vagaries of the payout schedule. It seemed clear when we signed the
contract, we'd pay a certain amount as each piece of work was "completed."
Since we never defined what "completed" was, the builder got to decide.
This caused lots of problems because he was able to demand money from us
that we felt hadn't been earned yet. He'd then take our money and disappear
for weeks or even months. At one point we told him we're not paying until
WE felt that portion was completed, and he threatened legal action.
In the end, we will be getting close to what we contracted for, and the
builder will get paid close to what he was supposed to get. The middle part
got pretty ugly however, and we had almost no leverage, and the builder
really took advantage of that.
S
|
|
Posted by dpb on September 29, 2006, 11:02 am
mrsgator88 wrote:
> > mrsgator88 wrote:
> > ...
..
> I took two terms of business law, and I remember learning about how its
> possible for contracts to be unenforceable. But stupidity is not a reason
> to void a contract.
No, no claim of such was made???
...
> ... its very possible for a contract to very much favor one side and be
> perfectly legit and enforceable.
Yes, it takes an extreme case usually to actually get it voided for the
reason of bias alone.
I was simply trying to emphasize the point that the intent in contract
law isn't to favor one party over the other. But, in general, you're
correct, it is the responsibility of each party to ensure their own
interests are protected adequately.
> ... Among other things, I got caught in the
> vagaries of the payout schedule. It seemed clear when we signed the
> contract, we'd pay a certain amount as each piece of work was "completed."
> Since we never defined what "completed" was, the builder got to decide.
...
That's perhaps an example of an incomplete or ambiguous contract, or it
could have been written specifically that way on purpose and got
through. Was it clear from contract language the builder was the sole
arbiter of "completed", or did he just assert it?
And, yes, writing complete (and fair) contracts _is_ difficult which is
why there are lawyers, amongst other reasons. And, of course, there is
still the fact that fundamentally, even good contracts are only as good
as the signatories' willingness to live up to them. If sounds like it
would have been quite likely in your case even if there were provisions
for "mutally-agreed completion" the builder may have been one who would
still have pushed for early payment.
The difficulty in most building or remodeling scenarios is that the
builder generally starts with a standard contract form that may well be
(probably is???) at least mildly biased in his favor and the client is
in the position of having to press for inclusions (or deletions) of
provisions to more nearly balance it. Most often they don't take the
time or effort to fully appreciate the necessity of this and may feel
some pressure to take it as offered because they particularly want the
specific builder for various reasons and are afraid to risk losing him.
Other disadvantages include simply not having the expertise to
recognize potential trouble spots such as the omission of who
arbitrates in case of dispute or how decisions such as in your example
are made. Builders with a reputation may have the luxury of being able
to say "take it or leave it" as they have all the work they can handle
anyway, so it isn't necessarily a totally level playing field from that
standpoint, either.
|
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 > last >>
|
|
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap
> contractor. He has taken every opportunity to charge me "extra" labor
> costs. He pitched to me that he was a "master craftsman" with 26 years
> experience.
> He charged me 2 1/2 hours at $75 an hour to unload wood for the deck
> and "examine" each piece. Please note I rented a fork-lift at my
> expense and there were five batches of wood, so it could not have taken
> more that 30 mins to actually unload the wood from the truck 75 feet to
> my driveway.
> He charged me $65 an hour for 10 hours since he says the existing (3)
> posts were set deeper than he "could have anticipated" and thus he had
> to rent a bigger jack hammer (at my expense) to dig them up (they were
> set at about 3 feet depth). Interestingly, he then set his replacement
> posts at the same depth of 3' so if he did this, why would he not
> anticipate that the previous contractor might have done this as well?
> Now he wants to charge me "extra" labor costs again to provide flashing
> between the deck and the house which was not present. He tells me
> that this should have been done originally. Well if this is the case
> then shouldnt this be an anticipated step and not considered "extra"
> labor.
> Bottom line is how can the consumer protect themselves from the
> contractor continually adding labor costs by claiming something is not
> anticipated, or covered in the original bid? I imagine there is
> virtually no job that there is not something that is not anticipated,
> and without some type of specific language in the contract, the
> contractor can use this to screw the consumer. Are there any consumer
> friendly contractor contracts that people have, that I can use in the
> future to prevent being continually screwed by a contractor.
>