1. Did the electrician have any control over the voltage when the system
was rewired?

2. Is it normal for electricians to measure the voltage, and "do
something"
about it if it's not correct (if only reporting the problem to the
businessman)?

You missed the point of the original post. The person who did the work was
NOT an electrician, they were a "handyman" hired to do the work.

I didn't miss the point (I think). He was doing the work of an electrician.
And whether or not he was a licensed electrician, he is still morally
responsible for the quality of his work. (Think Hamurabi.)


Since the person never said where they were, it's hard to guess what the
rules are but in (almost?) every jurisdiction that licenses
electricians, a license is needed to do electrical work.

If an unlicensed person does electrical work, the work has to be inspected
by a licensed electrician before the power is turned on. If that was not
the
case, there would be no point in licensing electricians, would there?

No, there wouldn't be. But if he botched the job, he has to be held
responsible. Doesn't he?

Of course, one might argue that if the person who hired him /knew/ he wasn't
an electrician, and didn't have the work inspected, then he (the hirer) is
responsible for whatever went wrong.

In article , "William Sommerwerck" wrote:
1. Did the electrician have any control over the voltage when the system
was rewired?

2. Is it normal for electricians to measure the voltage, and "do
something"
about it if it's not correct (if only reporting the problem to the
businessman)?

You missed the point of the original post. The person who did the work was
NOT an electrician, they were a "handyman" hired to do the work.

I didn't miss the point (I think). He was doing the work of an electrician.
And whether or not he was a licensed electrician, he is still morally
responsible for the quality of his work. (Think Hamurabi.)

Actually, you *are* missing the important point, which is that it's
_not_his_fault_:

1) 245VAC is *not* a problem in a nominal 240VAC supply.
2) If the equipment is actually labelled 220V, and not 240V, it's *old*.
3) Equipment designed for 220VAC normally operates just fine on 240VAC.
4) If the wiring, or the voltage, were in any way to blame, the failure almost
certainly would have occurred long before it did. Four weeks after the fact, I
can't see how that could be laid at the feet of the guy that did the wiring,
licensed or not.

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
...
In article , "William
Sommerwerck" wrote:

1) 245VAC is *not* a problem in a nominal 240VAC supply.


That is correct until you factor in that the taps were set to 220v. If the
taps were set at 240, then 245v would never have been a problem.

William Sommerwerck wrote:
1. Did the electrician have any control over the voltage when the system
was rewired?

2. Is it normal for electricians to measure the voltage, and "do
something"
about it if it's not correct (if only reporting the problem to the
businessman)?

You missed the point of the original post. The person who did the work was
NOT an electrician, they were a "handyman" hired to do the work.

I didn't miss the point (I think). He was doing the work of an electrician.
And whether or not he was a licensed electrician, he is still morally
responsible for the quality of his work. (Think Hamurabi.)

Only if it can be shown that he did something wrong. I don't know what
US tolerances on voltage are but in the UK 245v on a nominally 240 line
(these days 230v with asymetric tolerancing) wouldn't raise eyebrows.

Since the person never said where they were, it's hard to guess what the
rules are but in (almost?) every jurisdiction that licenses
electricians, a license is needed to do electrical work.

If an unlicensed person does electrical work, the work has to be inspected
by a licensed electrician before the power is turned on. If that was not
the
case, there would be no point in licensing electricians, would there?

No, there wouldn't be. But if he botched the job, he has to be held
responsible. Doesn't he?

Iff he botched the job. The kit worked for a while after he left. And he
did not claim to be a qualified electrician.

Had he connected the machine chassis to live and electrocuted someone
then it would be a different matter. But even then the employer who got
in a cut price handyman to do a qualified industrial electricians job
would still be guilty of more serious fundamental health and safety
offences for not having the installation inspected by a competent person
before switching it on. What are the US regs like on employer liability?

Of course, one might argue that if the person who hired him /knew/ he wasn't
an electrician, and didn't have the work inspected, then he (the hirer) is
responsible for whatever went wrong.

Exactly. And that is how the insurers would argue it to avoid paying out
a dime if the whole building burnt down as a result of unqualified
electrical work that had not been properly inspected before switch on. I
don't see that the handyman has anything to answer for although he may
still have problems with frivolous litigation from the OP's mate.

Regards,
Martin Brown