marson wrote:

Time and again on this group you see advice about things like "bid
specification sheets" and "contracts". I would bet a bid
specification sheet doesn't exist. Lucky if there was a written
contract. Did a licensed architect draw the plans? Bet not. It
might even be ambiguous who exactly the GC is.

I would tend to agree with those observations.

This is small time
residential, not big city commercial.

You are absolutely correct. Wouldn't you agree, though, that the size of the
job is not really relevant to the point of contract specificity and what the
bid sheet called for? If anything, this small time residential job smacks of
off-the-cuff-planning by the owner, which would leave the owner responsible.

In my mind, the real point is this: who was responsible to hire, fire and
evaluate what trades were needed for the entire job. Who was responsible to
evaluate the roofing system for ventilation, the ceiling for remodeling, and
the oversight for code compliance for the drawings involved? To me it
sounded like the poor schmuck who was hired was hired to do one thing only:
to remodel the ceiling. He wasn't asked to evaluate the roofing or
ventilation or insulation or even the design. It wouldn't be the
contractor's fault that the owner was ignorant of what actually needed to be
done and neglected to hire the proper people. And the bid sheet/contract
would specify if the contractor was responsible, and being paid for, the
overall oversight, evaluation, planning, drawings, etc.

I've been a carpenter/
contractor for most of my adult life (I'm pushing 50) and the number
of bid specification sheets I've seen on small remodelling jobs like
the OP is describing is very, very small. Not saying it wouldn't be a
good idea, just saying that it rarely happens.

I know. And I think you'd agree that because of that, serious
misunderstandings occur. Ignorant owners try to hang the blame on the
contractor when the job is different than what the owner had in his mind
because the contractor isn't a mind reader and ESP is a poor substitute for
written specificaions.

I still say if the
contractor pulled the permit, he should be responsible for framing it
in such a way that the roof will meet code.

But was a permit pulled? Who actually pulled it? And why would the local
planning dept. even issue a permit, when presented with the drawings and
specs they normally require, which would clearly demonstrate a failure of
the framing to meet code for roofing ventilation? To me, this just doesn't
make any sense.

Maybe that wouldn't stand
up in court, but that's the argument I'd use with the contractor.

Let me ask this: what if the contractor was told to conform to a specific
design the OP had in mind? What if the OP told the contractor that that
specific design was already approved and the OP was taking care of the
permit? What do we know of the actual conversations that took place between
the OP and the contractor? The answer is that we don't have a clue, except
for the recollections of the OP. Without a bid sheet and/or contract, it's
the OP's word against the contractor's word.

I still can't get past the fact that a supposed permit was issued even
though the specs and drawings, which must accompany an application for that
type of permit, would have shown a code violation. It just doesn't make
sense.

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com