Vince wrote:
On 9 Dec 2005 22:57:02 -0800, "RicodJour"
wrote:
SNIPPED

If I understnad you, you furnished the granite. This is one of those
all too common situations where an owner provides materials to an
installer in the interest of saving some money. When a problem arises,
and the material gets damaged, the owner "knows" it was the fault of
the installers and expects them to correct it, including buying new
material. The contractor "knows" that he's working for basically
straight labor and there was no contingency amount included for faulty
materials as they're the owner's responsibility.


The contractor knows best what his track record is with regard to
damages that he might cause. Ego plays a part here.

Basically it boils down to the owner trying to save a few bucks but
still expecting fullservice contracting. It's called wanting "to have
your cake and eat it, too."


I disagree here. The homeowner has paid for quality labor, and does
expect the material that he supplied to be damaged during performance
of the contractor's labor.

You left out the word "not". A critical mistake in that sentence, but
an accident, I'm sure. Similar to someone slipping with a wrench.
Unfortunate, but stuff happens.

If you want the installer to replace the granite, furnish him with some
more. He'll eat the labor and you'll eat the granite. You'll both
have learned something.

R

Scenario:

Homeowner supplies a two piece toilet. The tank lever needs to be
swapped with a trip lever (supplied by homeowner) of a differnt color.

Frankly, this is such a trivial task and well within anyone's
abilities, that I question why a homeowner interested in saving money
wouldn't do it themselves.

During the swapping process by contractor, the surface of the toilet
tank becomes chipped.

Oops. Sorry.

Are you arguing that the contractor is not obligated for replacement
(material and labor) of the tank that he damaged?

So you're equating swapping a toilet handle with cutting and installing
granite slabs? You don't think there might be a _tiny_ difference in
the likelihood that something might get damaged when very heavy
objects, fragile and brittle objects, are moved about and cut with
diamond tools? Personally I think there's a hell of a difference.
Risk is the point and you're neglecting to factor that in.

If the contractor does the entire job, he will use his normal pricing
strategy and markup the materials. He will aslo figure in
contingencies for what can go wrong. Anything that can cause a problem
has a number put on it. A customer who shows signs of being a pain in
the ass will find larger numbers on his project as that is a risk.
Special order products that the contractor has never installed before
will have numbers put on them. It is the only way that a contractor
can plan for the unknown - by putting a number on it. He's taking the
risk and getting paid for it. That's how it works in everything.

Now contrast that with an owner wanting to save a few bucks and
furnishing the materials themselves. The contractor is now basically
working for straight labor. Something gets damaged - forget who is at
fault for the moment as it is not material. Where is the contractor
supposed to come up with the extra money to purchase new materials and
offset the extra time involved for which he will not get paid? Take it
from the kids lunch money? No, it comes from the next project that the
contractor works on. If the guy has been in business for a while,
he'll quickly learn that there is no free lunch - not for the owner not
for him. He'll build in contingency amounts in such a situation to
protect him from that risk, or he'll stop doing projects where the
owner furnishes materials.

In other words, the owner wants to save money and assume none of the
risk. That's not how it works. It's not fair to the contractor. Is
it safe to assume that you're concerned about fairness in your business
dealings? Think about it.

R