In alt.home.repair, on Sun, 06 Sep 2015 14:21:21 -0400, dgk
wrote:


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

This is a problem, but morally and legally it's not necessarily the
deciding fact.

Morally, I've only read a couple replies so far, but I agree with
Trader, that it sounds like you're waiving damage they do directly, and
if you had ever thought that what he did would cause damage that is $500
more than the original job, you would never have agreed to let him do
the job. He named the value of the job as $1400, not you.

Also look up contract of adhesion. That's what you had, a contract
written by them, take it or leave it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_form_contract

AIUI, contractually, you can waive negligence on the other party's part,
but you can't waive gross negligence. If they used the wrong product,
or applied it like no one else would do, I'll bet that is gross
negligence. Both legally and morally.

that if this type of thing happens it usually happens when the guys
are actually doing the work. The owner offered to repair the damage
for half price, around $700. But he also said that he couldn't
guarantee that the other kitchen tiles would stay in place and

Right. After he repairs them for 700, he'll do $2400 damage but be
willing to repair it for 1200.

suggested that it would be more cost effective to have someone redo
the kitchen tiles. There also aren't enough spares to replace all the
tiles that cracked.

Dang.

--

Stumpy Strumpet
the bimbus
for dogcatcher