On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 8:06:38 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 6:54:41 PM UTC-4, Tony Hwang wrote:
Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/6/2015 2:21 PM, dgk wrote:




The contractor says that this happens sometimes and that the contract
specifies that they aren't responsible for damage to nearby tiles,

I think you are screwed. Good chance they did cause some of the damage,
but it sounds like it was a poor job to start with. I know it is
expensive, but I'd consider doing the whole floor over again, but with a
different contractor.

Given the contract wording, I don't think you have a chance in court.

Another thing is no warranty of any kind on the contract? Sounds like
some thing is not right on workmanship or materials used.

Why would a warranty enter into this? The tiles repaired under the contract are not the ones he is currently having problems with. In addition, according to the OP, the contract specifically states that the contractor is not responsible for damage to nearby tiles.

This does not appear to be a warranty issue.

As I said before, I think his best shot is if by a miracle there
is an empty tube of whatever this adhesive was still around. I'd
be very curious to know what it was. And if it's something that
isn't appropriate for the application, then I think he's got a case
for a full refund. I think what happened obviously shows that it's
not the right product, but if it says it on the tube, that's a lot
better. Even with the disclaimer about not being responsible for
adjacent tiles, he might be able to win a case on the basis that
the real problem is the contractor was incompetent, that having a
big disaster like this is the result of using the wrong product, etc.

Say for example, a power washing company has a contract to do the
wood siding on your house that says something to the effect of not
being responsible for surface damage. Does that mean
they can use 5000 PSI, totally screw all the siding, then just walk away?
I don't think so, because they violated implicit standards of professional
competency. He might win a similar argument here and I'd probably
stop the payment.