On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 8:09:08 AM UTC-4, trader_4 wrote:
On Monday, September 7, 2015 at 7:58:02 PM UTC-4, DerbyDad03 wrote:


Note the word (purposely). That is key to my point. Here is how I imagine it
went down:

The contract covered a specific number of tiles that either needed to be
completely re-set (as in either re-glued or replaced with spares)as well as a
specific number of tiles that were to be fixed via the injection of adhesive.
I believe that that understanding of the situation fits the OP's words "they
injected adhesive between some other tiles to make sure that they didn't come
up." The "completely re-set" and "contracted-for adhesive-injected" tiles
would be covered by the warranty. No problem there.


Now, in the process of injecting adhesive under the contracted-for tiles, the contractor also injected adhesive under near-by/adjacent tiles, let's say by accident. In any case, those are not the same "some other tiles" that had adhesive injected as part of the contract, therefore the contractor is claiming that he is not responsible for the damage to them.

It all depends on what the OP means by:

"The guys reset the tiles, using six of the spares to replace some of
the others that had cracked or been nicked over time. They injected
adhesive between some other tiles to make sure that they didn't come
up."

You're taking that to mean that the other tiles were in a different
area, on their own. I and I think most others here took it to mean
that these were some of the adjacent tiles.

Yes, and "on their own" could in fact mean "right next to" or "adjacent" to
the tiles that were contracted for. That would indeed be "a different area"
in terms of what was contracted for.

Let's try this example: Imagine two properties with adjacent lots. One
property is in East Bewildered, ME, the other property is in West
Bewildered, ME. 2 adjacent properties covered by different codes, laws,
rules. Now imagine 2 adjacent tiles. One covered by contract to be repaired
thus covered by a warranty, the other one nothing more than a "near by"
tile, thus excluded from the warranty and also specifically excluded by the
"responsibility clause". The towns have boundaries, the contract had
boundaries.

If we go all the back to the first post we see this:

"The contractor walked around the house hitting all the tiles with a
broomstick handle so he could tell the general state of the tiles. "

Once that was done, I imagine that there was an agreed upon set of tiles
that would be repaired, either by resetting, replacing or injecting. Any
other tiles, whether they are in the next row over from the contracted tiles
or in other room, would not be part of the contract. They might be near by,
they might be adjacent, they might be on another floor. Regardless of where
they are, they are indeed "on their own/in another area" in terms of the
contract.



I have two reasons for thinking he meant adjacent tiles. One is
that with the loose tiles removed, it would be easy and logical
to inject adhesive under the adjacent tiles. How you inject adhesive
under other tiles somewhere else that aren't already loose isn't
clear to me. Second is that something caused these tiles to violently
pop a day later. Injecting something under them would explain it.

We are in 100% agreement here.

Absent that, how do you account for them suddenly popping?

I think that this is where we keep diverging. I must not be explaining
myself very well. I never said that nothing was injecting under the
popping tiles. I have repeatedly said, in various ways, that nothing was
*supposed* to have been injected under the popping tiles. I have no problem
imagining this happening:

The contractor tapped on Tile 1 and determined that it needed to be
injected. He then tapped on Tile 2 - an adjacent tile - and decided it
did not need to be injected. Tile 1 is included in the contract, Tile 2 is
not. He then injects adhesive under Tile 1 and it enters the gaps he found
by tapping. However, the adhesive also seeps under Tile 2, perhaps into very
small gaps - gaps so small that Tile 2 passed the tapping test. Overnight,
the adhesive expands to fill the gaps in Tile 1 (a good thing) but also
overfills the small gaps in Tile 2, popping it off the floor (a bad thing).

Tile 1 (contracted) is OK, so there is no warranty issue. Tile 2 (non-
contracted) pops, but is excluded from the contractor's responsibility by
the "near by tiles" clause.

So, yes, I am completely agreeing that there was adhesive "injected" under
Tile 2, but trying to point out that it wasn't done intentionally (or at
least not under contract) therefore excluded from the contractor's
responsibility.


I think we're in agreement on the rest of the issue, maybe the
OP will clarify this point.

We'll see...