|
Posted by on November 26, 2006, 5:17 pm
krw wrote:
> d.phillipsonSPAMBLOCK@ncf.ca says...
> >
> > > I called the contractor and he claimed since the copper pipe wasn't
> > > centered in the stud, and thus not done to code, he wasn't responsible.
> > > I feel that since it wasn't leaking before he started working on the
> > > house, and it was his nail that caused the leak, he is ultimately
> > > responsible regardless of whether the plumbing was to code or not. I
> > > am hoping to settle this dispute and I haven't been able to find any
> > > authoritative legal precedent. Does anyone have any ideas on this?
> >
> > Both parties seem to have a defective understanding of
> > both building codes and common law.
> >
> > 1. In most jurisdictions, the only part of the building code
> > that is retroactive (i.e. obligates both home-owner and
> > contractor after a house has been OKed for occupation)
> > is the fire safety code. E.g. code nowadays often specify
> > bathroom doorways must be wide enough for wheelchairs.
> > But this does not obligate homeowners (or repair
> > carpenters) to rip out old doorways to make them comply
> > with the new code.
> >
> > 2. Unless specified beforehand in writing, your
> > assertion that the contractor is liable for damage he
> > caused is a common-law claim. Defending himself, the
> > contractor can say he assumed the pipe was where the
> > code said it ought to be, so he is not liable for nail damage
> > where no pipe was expected. You would then have
> > to prove to a court's satisfaction that you had some
> > basis to expect he could tell in what non-code place
> > the pipe was located.
>
> Did you see a later post saying that the opposite side of the wall
> was open?
>
> > Since you have already put the damage right,
>
> The OP is required to mitigate damages as best he can, no? It
> would seem that fixing the pipe is a better solution that putting a
> pan under it.
>
> > you would need unusual oratorical skill
> > to get a court to listen. But only a court judgment
> > could enforce your claim.
>
> Perhaps, but for $40, the plumber should have thrown him the bone
> and marked it off to a bad day at the office.
>
> --
> Keith
Did you see the original post that the one he's trying to get to pay
for it is the carpenter, not the plumber? And he may very well not
know who the plumber is, since it was existing work that may have been
there for a long time.
If it were me and I fixed it for $40, including tools, I wouldn't waste
my time worrying about it. If he went to small claims for a decision
and they ruled in his favor, how much is he going to get? They won't
award labor for a job he did himself and I doubt they are going to
award for the tools he bought. So, he gets $5 for materials.
| 
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML Sitemap