"John Willis" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 05:28:55 GMT, scribbled this
interesting note:

Where you are asking a trade to risk damage to his equipment outside
normal risk, it is appropriate for him to ask you to indemnify him
against the risk. HOWEVER this should be done in advance.

Ken,


This seems reasonable, but I would further state that if this is the
case, the person doing the hiring, and assuming the risk of damage to
tools, should only be required to replace with like tools, meaning if
a tool is half depreciated and becomes damaged, the replacement tool
should be of like characteristics. It should not be required that a
half worn out tool be replaced with a new one, and if it is replaced
with a new one, then the person assuming the risk should only be
required to pay for half the original purchase price of the now broken
tool, not half the purchase price of a new one.

Personally, I'd shy away from anyone wanting me to replace his
equipment of it breaks while working for me. It is part of the cost of
doing business and replacement of his tools should be built into his
cost structure, since we all know tools wear and eventually break.


--
John Willis
(Remove the Primes before e-mailing me)

And, I believe that it may also become necessary to have a notarized
document prepared by an attorney to cover all codicils, conditions, and
caveats. Of course, the cost of this would have to be borne by the
consumer, non-negotiable, and non-refundable.

And don't forget the clauses if I break a nail, or tear my shirt.

And speaking of shirts, what about depreciation, wear, and cleaning? Uhoh.
Another clause.

Do you know how much they get for a good nail job today? The ones with the
Home Depot appliques? A LOT!

Tool torts. Has kind of a turd hitting the floor ring to it, don't you
think?

Steve