Vince wrote:

On 10 Dec 2005 12:14:34 -0800, "RicodJour"
wrote:


Vince wrote:

The contractor takes on a project for a fixed price to install a
tub/toilet/sink, etc. that are supplied by the buyer. By doing so,
the contractor assumes risk of damaging material. Any contractor that
does not factor in a contingency for possibly causing material damage
is making a mistake.

OK. How much should that contingency be?


10% of total retail cost of materials supplied by buyer.


The replacement cost of the
material multiplied by his estimation of breakage. I don't like
gambling and I'm not in the insurance business. I'd just figure the
replacement cost of the material. Where's the savings now?


With that kind of markup, you would not get the job. I don't like to
gamble either; that is why I seek out a professional to do what I have
decided not to do myself.

There is more than one reason why a buyer decides to furnish material
and hire a "laborer" that is bonded and insured. In my view, by
furnishing major fixtures when having a bathroom remodelled, means
that the labor cost is going to be higher than if the contractor
furnishes all material including the tub/faucet/med chest, etc.

One very likely reason for hiring "labor only" is because the
contractor does not offer what the buyer wants in terms of materials.

IOW, why should a buyer settle on a chrome or polished brass
Delta/Moen/AmStd faucet when he/she prefers to have some other mfgr
item in a color of choice?

Is this a "secret" supplier? Tell him what you want and and where to
get it.


A complete and detailed listing of fixtures was supplied to the
contractor, including the vendor's name and pricing that buyer was
quoted by that vendor. If the contractor wanted to, he could obtain
same fixtures at a contractor's cost and then add $$ while still
coming out less than buyer/retail pricing. In fact, the contractor
did just that: make an offer for cost of the fixtures.


If the contractor doesn't want to be bothered and suggests
that the owner purchase the materials, that's slightly different, but
by no means does it mean that the owner doesn't have a vested interest
in the material or the completion of the project.


OK. How slightly different would it be when the contractor declines
to obtain the fixtures specified by the buyer ?

The homeowner certainly has a vested interest in the material that he
supplies: if it is damged during shipment or does not fit or is wrong
item, then the project halts until an appropriate replacement item
arrives onsite.


When the job is split up very specific conversations have to take place
so everyone is aware of who is responsible for what. Obviously there'd
be no reason to post if these conversations and agreements had taken
place. There's plenty of blame to go around since both parties failed
to force the issue of responsibility prior to the damage occurring

I have no idea, in either situation, whether the damage was avoidable
or not. My point is you're both getting what I like to call an
"unwanted education." Next time you can be damn sure things will be
done differently.

R

In this instance, the tank/toilet is of excellent quality and arrived
in a satisfactory condition. Susequent handling by the contractor
resulted in the tank being damaged. A professional contractor would
eat the replacement and labor costs.
Hi,
Legit contractor has insurance to cover such incidents. Material loss or
injury to worker is covered. First thing to check.
Even small things should be in black and white just to be sure.
Isn't this all common sense?
Tony