On Sep 8, 12:44 pm, B King wrote:
marson wrote:
I have done a few demo contracts, and if I was leading the job, I
would make the assumption that pulling the nails is part of the demo.
What is standard? Who knows. I really doubt there is 200 years worth
of case law that would give you guidance on this issue. It would have
been nice to have this spelled out in a contract, but here in the real
world, a lot is left off of contracts. Drawing up a contract that
spells out every single thing would practically be as much work as the
job itself. That is why contracts have such terms as "workmanlike
manner" and lawyers use terms such as "standard of the trade". IMO
pulling nails would be part of the demo contract.

I would suggest you call your demo guy, and nicely ask if he could
send someone back to pull the nails. If you haven't paid him you have
some pretty good leverage. I guess if he refuses and ****es you off,
you could go after him in small claims court, though it would be a
hell of a lot easier to just pull the nails and get over it. This
sort of thing is all part of the joy of general contracting.

In the real contracting world, a lot is NOT left out.

Of course a lot is left out. Just a casual glance at this newsgroup
over time shows many people don't even have a contract at all. And
countless people have come in here with issues of this type. How
many homeowner's would think to put in a clause stating that all nails
have to be removed? I'm sure plenty, perhaps most, wouldn't even
think of it when looking at a contract.



I have no idea of
the kind of outfits you have contracted with, but they do show a shady
side. A simple clause saying "removal of all fasteners", or something to
the effect of "walls to be drywall ready".

Yeah, we know that would have avoided the problem, but that's already
obvious.


I've done government spec work, and you learn a lot without a lawyer.
Details, details, and more details, define any contract.

So, you're expecting a typical homeowner contract to be done like a
DOD contract? Hmmm, last time I checked, plenty has gone wrong there
too hasn't it?



Advising someone not to pay, is very poor advice, & asking for a lien on
the property. Apparently, you haven't been involved in any lien
processes. Property liens must be placed _within_ 30 days of
non-payment. This places a burden on the property owner, which in some
cases, the property owner must sue to get the lien off the property,
even after the property owner paid up.-

BS. No one should pay in full unless the work was competed to their
reasonable satisfaction. To do so, gives up all your leverage. I
would pay, but withhold an amount for the work in dispute. If they
want to try to lien, let them go right ahead. You can sue them in
small claims. Who cares if they put a lien on, unless you;re about
to sell or refinance. Bottom line, no reason to just roll over and
pay in full.