"20. THE COMPANY'S MONETARY DAMAGE LIABILITY FOR ANY CLAIM OF PROPERTY
DAMAGE
ARISING OUT OF THE COMPANY'S PERFORMANCE OR NON-PERFORMANCE OF THIS
AGREEMENTSHALL NOT EXCEED THE TOTAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT."

And you checked to see if he had insurance right? What that clause is
stating as I read it, as a contractor, that if you sue, and you already

sound like one that would, HIS outlay of liability isnt going to be
more
than the amount you agreed to.
His INSURANCE company on the other hand, isnt listed, and THATS what
insurance is for.


His insurance company isn't listed because they are not a party to the
contract. This section is crystal clear. The contractor has limited
his maximum liabilitly to the total cost of the job. If the job costs
$25K and he winds up causing $100K damage, he's off the hook for the
other $75k and so is the insurance company. The lawsuit would be
against the contractor. The insurance company will defend it in court,
simply saying the contract clearly lists our clients maximum liability
at $25K, which is exactly what it does. He could have $1mil in
insurance, but if the homeowner caps his limit in the contract, he's
out of luck.

wrote in message
oups.com...
"It has to be 'reasonable' or its not enforceable. Most
people
dont know that and get roped into rip off deals by business
and government all the time... the fact that you signed does
not mean you have to pay if payment puts you into an
unviable,
(not survivable or undue damaging position) therefore
unreasonable situation. "

This is one of the dumbest things I ever heard. So, you're
saying if I
sign a contract to buy a boat for $200k, agreeing to make
payments,

No need for you to be a complete idiot. You will have to
study the law to determine how these judgements are made.

and example would be if you purchased a 200,000 boat on the
internet, signed the contract and the guy shipped you a
cracker box toy boat then tried to collect the 200k.... a
judge would throw it out of court the seller might be
chargeable with fraud or not depending on how his ad was
worded.

etc/

that was an extreme example.

Yourself... you are not going to ever get bright if you take
this trasher view..that screens out insight... its not bright
of you.

all this is established law. its not magical... nor uncommon
sense.





and
then say, "It wasn't reasonable, If I have to continue to
make payments
on it, then I'll have to sell my house and won't have
enought money to
eat" , a court is gonna say, OK, no problem, it just wasn't
a
reasonable contract, it's invalid, you're off the hook?

You are spinning. of course there are a majority of cases
where contracts are fully enforceable and should be
enforced..I was discussing the exceptions very clearly...
you are not doing yourself any favors by your attitude.

sorry but Im going to have to pass on any further conversation
with you.



If that were the case, people would be bailing on all kinds
of
contracts for all kinds of BS reasons. The court isn't
there to go
back and decide how fair or reasonable the contract was.

Incorrect...that IS why the court is there. That is
entirely why the court is there...and that is why people take
these things to court...the court decides. That the basis
of law and juris prudence. You dont know that. Now you do.
If you are smart, which may not be the case, you will let
that bit of wisdom sink in, or at least do some research.
Being an abusive or spinning truly does not become a person.




That was up
to the parties that entered into it. As someone else
pointed out, as
long as it meets the important tests listed and doesn't
violate law,
then it's going to be held valid.

Not correct the lists of tests was short.. there are others,
primarily covered by 'reaonable man' statutes since you have
correctly mentioned fraud here.




Getting a bad deal by signing a bad
contract doesn't mean a court is going to undo it and let
you walk.

Correct in some cases, not correct in others...it it goes to a
jury trial, the jury decides it. You have chosen to be
myopic and see only one VALID side of the situation then you
are beating the drum for that side and being proud or
whatever...fine..but then as you deny the other side of the
argument you become less bright you see.




Phil Scott

wrote in message
ups.com...
"It's known as an "Unconscionable Contract" and there are
provisions
under which a contract may be deemed unenforceable owing to
such
provisions. However, in order to meet such a criterion, the
abuse has
to be extreme and simply a higher than market value in and
of itself
would be unlikely unless it were truly and extreme case. In
general,
it
would require some sort of deceit or other heinous action on
the part
of
one party to create such a condition. That somebody agreed
to pay
$200k
or a boat that might only be worth $150k or so would be very
unlikely
to
elicit such a reaction unless there could be shown a willful
misrepresentation on the part of the seller. Simply the
excuse of not
being able to afford the payments would not be sufficient,
certainly.

Here's a summary of the general provisions typical...


"Unconscionable contracts are so unfair to one party that
the contract
becomes unenforceable, usually with respect to consumers
induced to
sign
contracts via high pressure sales techniques or who
misunderstood the
requirements and conditions. Such contracts hide
procedurally unfair
terms in the fine print, contain exorbitant price or limit
buyer's
remedy (waiver of buyer's defenses, prohibiting buyer's
recovery in
case
of product defects, limiting remedies to useless options,
giving a
seller the right to reposess items sold on credit regardless
of payoffs

on some of them)."


Its good to see you doing some research. There are many
factors in any contract that can render it unenforceable and
those vary state to state and with personal conditions even..
for insance if you got a bag lady to sign a 100 million dollar
contract to buy a building...she's legal of sound mind and
body... a court would ask you what in the hell you were
thinking...and would not even attempt to hold her to the
contract. Im sure you think thats not the case... not my
problem.

Later..

Phil Scott


Yes, I agree, you MIGHT win a case if you had some or all of
these
conditions present. But most of those type cases are
brought against
companies by the govt for doing that list of things many
times to large
numbers of consumers. I didn't see anything in the
contract that
started this thread that qualifies as grounds for throwing
out the
whole contract. For sure, it's a bad contract for the
homeowner and I
wouldn't deal with the company. I'd say much of it is
unreasonable
too, but I think they would likely hold up in a court of
law.

The problem I had was a previous poster suggesting that a
contract had
to be "reasonable" for it to be enforceable. Most people
would say
signing a contract to pay $200K for a boat that was only
worth $150K
was not reasonable. But I think we agree, it would be hard
to find a
court to rule the contract invalid on that basis. Courts
don't get
involved in figuring out if the contract was really fair, if
somone
should have gotten a better deal etc, unless it's way out of
line and
usually then in a number of areas that are totally over the
top.

"and example would be if you purchased a 200,000 boat on the
internet, signed the contract and the guy shipped you a
cracker box toy boat then tried to collect the 200k.... a
judge would throw it out of court the seller might be
chargeable with fraud or not depending on how his ad was
worded. "

Do you really think so? Duh! That'a an example of fraud. Was that
what we were talking about? The OP posted a contract that was a bad
one for a homeowner to sign. It was loaded in the favor of the
contractor. However, that's a long way from having a court rule it
unreasonable. Court's don't get involved in if you paid too much,
could have gotten a better deal, later found out it could have been
done cheaper, unless it's something really extreme. There was nothing
even close to that extreme in the OP's contract, so why suggest people
can just get out of contracts cause they are "unreasonable or would
cause undue hardship?" And now you;re changing the story, by
switching to an example of total fraud.

"sorry but Im going to have to pass on any further conversation
with you."

Yes, please do and avoid any further embarrassment to yourself!

" Incorrect...that IS why the court is there. That is
entirely why the court is there...and that is why people take
these things to court...the court decides. That the basis
of law and juris prudence. You dont know that"

I know you just contradicted yourself, cause you're continuing to rant.
The court isn;t there to undue contracts like the one that started
this thread. What you suggested was that it's easy to get out of a
contract that's "unreasonable". That's simply not true. And who the
hell is going to go around litigating BS like this? For a $20K
dispute, you'll wind up with more than that in legal fees. The right
thing is to figure out if the contract is reasonable BEFORE signing it.

"Correct in some cases, not correct in others...it it goes to a
jury trial, the jury decides it. You have chosen to be
myopic and see only one VALID side of the situation then you
are beating the drum for that side "


Oh great, and now the avg joe is gonna get out of an "unreasonable"
contract with a full jury trial? Sure, why not pay $25 or $100K in
legal fees screwing around. Are you for real? I'm not myopic, I'm
realistic. If anyone signs that original contract, it's very likely
gonna be enforceable. And further, even if it's not, you'll waste more
money in legal fees than the contractor screwed you for to begin with.

Why don't you get your insurance money FIRST, then get a contractor. Are
they not doing that? Get a contractor from your local yellow pages. I know
first hand that LOADS of contractors are coming from all over the US to FL
to repair from last year's hurricanes.

May I ask why you waited a year to get your home repaired? Was it lack of
contractors available? I wonder if your insurance company will even pay
this late in the game. (Yes, I am in FL)

--

boB
"Doc" wrote in message
news
I'm in Florida working on getting post-hurricane repairs made to my house.
Replacement of the roof, drywall replacement in several rooms and full
house
carpet replacement.

I've found a General Contractor who says they can do the work. They left
an
agreement with me to sign before they'll begin any contact with the
Insurance company. I realize many of you aren't attornies but am hoping
some
have had experience with this sort of issue and see what you think about
some points on the agreement - under each I'll include any questions
concerns about the point. If you see something, by all means speak up. By
the way, sorry for the all caps, but I did this by OCR off my scanner. It
would take forever to type it all:

3. SHOULD DEFAULT BE MADE IN PAYMENT OF THIS AGREEMENT FOR MORE THAN
FIFTEEN DAYS, A LATE CHARGE EQUAL TO FIVE PERCENT OF THE AMOUNT DUE PLUS
INTEREST FROM THE DATE THEREOF AT A RATE OF ONE AND ONE-HALF (1 1/2)
PERCENT
PER MONTH (18 PER ANNUM) OR SUCH MAXIMUM AMOUNT ALLOWED BY LAW, AND IF
PLACED IN THE HANDS OF AN ATTORNEY FOR COLLECTION. ALL ALLOWABLE
ATTORNEY'S
FEES AND LEGAL AND FILING FEES SHALL BE PAID BY THE CUSTOMER.


I wonder about coordination of money from the Insurance company vs when
the
contractor is going to be doing the work. Do they normally not begin work
until the insurance company has agreed to the costs?


6. COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REVOKE THIS PROPOSAL 90 DAYS FROM DATE
ACCEPTED. AFTER 90 DAYS, COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REVISE ITS PRICE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH COSTS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME.

Is what they're saying is that they can back out any time up to 90 days or
that it's only good for 90 days?


7. THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE DUE TO
LABOR
CONTROVERSIES, STRIKES, FIRES, WEATHER, INABILITY TO OBTAIN MATERIALS FROM
USUAL SOURCES, OR ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE
COMPANY,
WHETHER OF A SIMILAR OR DISSIMILAR NATURE.


I wonder what constitutes a "labor controversy"?


11. IF THIS AGREEMENT IS CANCELLED BY THE CUSTOMER, CUSTOMER SHALL PAY TO
THE COMPANY TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT (25) OF THE TOTAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT AS
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, NOT AS A PENALTY, AND THE COMPANY AGREES TO ACCEPT
SUCH
AS A REASONABLE AND JUST COMPENSATION FOR SAID CANCELLATION. THE PARTIES
ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT DAMAGES THE COMPANY MIGHT REASONABLY ANTIC-
IPATE IN THE EVENT OF A BREACH OF THIS AGREEMENT BY CUSTOMER(S) WILL BE
DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN AND THE AMOUNT STIPULATED HEREIN IS A REASONABLE
ESTIMATE OF SUCH DAMAGES.

What if they keep stalling on work and I get sick of waiting for them and
want to look for someone else?

12. PAYMENT SCHEDULE: DEDUCTIBLE DUE UPON INSURANCE PROVIDER APPROVAL.
FIFTY
PERCENT (50) OF THE TOTAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT DUE UPON DATE OF DELIVERY OF
APPLICABLE MATERIALS. BALANCE DUE UPON COMPLETION OF WORK. ALL PAYMENTS
MUST
BE MADE TO THE COMPANY. ONLY PAYMENTS MADE TO AND RECEIVED BY THE COMPANY
WILL BE CONSIDERED TO SATISFY THE PAYMENT OF THIS AGREEMENT. PAYMENT
SCHEDULE SHALL NOT BE AMENDED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE
COMPANY.


Is this normal? Btw, it's not quite what the contractor's rep said when he
came to do a preliminary look-see. He said on the roof that they get 1/3
when they get the materials, 1/3 when they "start driving nails" and 1/3
when I was happy with the job.


15. DURING THE DURATION OF THE WORK, THE CUSTOMER'S HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE
WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY INTERIOR DAMAGE AS LONG AS THE COMPANY HAS
TAKEN
APPROPRIATE ACTION TO PROTECT THE ROOF DURING THE REPAIR OF THE ROOF.


When could this be an issue?


17. THE COMPANY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PRE-EXISTING CONSTRUCTION
DEFICIENCIES THAT MANIFEST THEMSELVES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS,
I.E.
NAIL POPS, WOODROT, DECKING DEFLECTION, ETC. IF A CONSTRUCTION PROBLEM IS
POINTED OUT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND COMPANY IS NOTIFIED IN WRITING,
COMPANY WILL TRY TO ASSIST CUSTOMER TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM(S) ON A TIME
AND
MATERIAL BASIS.


They seem to be referring largely to decks here which isn't an issue in my
case, but what is a "nail pop"? Any way it could apply to a roofing job?

19. COMPANY ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY TO INDEMNIFY OR HOLD CUSTOMER HARMLESS
FOR
DAMAGES TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY, EXCEPT THOSE THAT ARE THE DIRECT RESULT OF
COMPANY'S NEGLIGENT ERROR OR OMISSION WHICH OCCUR DURING PERFORMANCE OF
THE
COMPANY'S WORK. COMPANY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES TO
PERSONS OR PROPERTY RESULTING FROM MOLD GROWTH WITHIN ANY PART OF THE
BUILDING ENVELOPE DUE TO MOISTURE ENTERING THE BUILDING ENVELOPE PRIOR TO
COMPANY'S COMPLETION OF INSTALLATION OF THE ROOF SYSTEMS/MEMBRANE, SIDING,
WINDOW AND GUTTER SYSTEMS OR AS THE RESULT OF DAMAGE TO OR PENETRATION OF
THE INSTALLED ROOF SYSTEMS/MEMBRANE, SIDING, WINDOW AND GUTTER SYSTEMS BY
OTHERS. CUSTOMER UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES THAT COMPANY SHALL HAVE NO
RESPONSIBILITY AT ANY TIME AFTER COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR DAMAGES OF ANY
KIND TO PERSONS OR PROP
ERTY LOCATED BELOW THE INSTALLED ROOF SYSTEMS/MEMBRANE, SIDING, WINDOW AND
GUTTER SYSTEMS, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH DAMAGES RESULT FROM (A) LEAKS OR
WEATHER-ORIENTED SOURCES OR (B) MOLD GROWTH.


Any problems here?


20. THE COMPANY'S MONETARY DAMAGE LIABILITY FOR ANY CLAIM OF PROPERTY
DAMAGE
ARISING OUT OF THE COMPANY'S PERFORMANCE OR NON-PERFORMANCE OF THIS
AGREEMENTSHALL NOT EXCEED THE TOTAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT.


I'm fuzzy on what's considered "the total agreement amount".


23. FLORIDA LAW APPLIES TO THIS AGREEMENT. ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING RELATING
TO
THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE FILED EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE COUNTY OR CIRCUIT COURT
OF ORANGE COUNTY, FL. THE RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL IS WAIVED.

The right to a jury trial is waived? Could this come back to bite me? I
wonder under what circumstances it could become an issue.


24. THIS AGREEMENT IS COMPOSED OF THIS BACK PAGE, THE FRONT SIDE OF THE
AGREEMENT AND A SEPARATE PAGE WHICH CONTAINS A MANDATORY FLORIDA
DISCLOSURE
REGRADING CONSTRUCTION LIEN LAW. AND ALL MATTERS INCORPORATED HEREIN BY
REFERENCE AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BY THE PARTIES.


Any thoughts?


What I'm looking for is if you feel these seem like normal, reasonable
provisions or if you see anything that's questionable.

Thanks for all shared wisdom.

avoid them like mexican tapwater. most of the verbiage is standard but the
hold harmless clause is not good. you want someone that guarantees thier
work. if you use them have them sign a lien waiver prior to construction to
protect you. a labor controversy can be someone not getting paid. that
worker then puts a workers lien on your home.

have fun. often the ins company has a list of approved builders.the good
old network can work both ways, such as providing a superior product.


"htimS boB" wrote in message
nk.net...
Why don't you get your insurance money FIRST, then get a contractor. Are
they not doing that? Get a contractor from your local yellow pages. I
know
first hand that LOADS of contractors are coming from all over the US to FL
to repair from last year's hurricanes.

May I ask why you waited a year to get your home repaired? Was it lack of
contractors available? I wonder if your insurance company will even pay
this late in the game. (Yes, I am in FL)

--

boB
"Doc" wrote in message
news
I'm in Florida working on getting post-hurricane repairs made to my
house.
Replacement of the roof, drywall replacement in several rooms and full
house
carpet replacement.

I've found a General Contractor who says they can do the work. They left
an
agreement with me to sign before they'll begin any contact with the
Insurance company. I realize many of you aren't attornies but am hoping
some
have had experience with this sort of issue and see what you think about
some points on the agreement - under each I'll include any questions
concerns about the point. If you see something, by all means speak up.
By
the way, sorry for the all caps, but I did this by OCR off my scanner.
It
would take forever to type it all:

3. SHOULD DEFAULT BE MADE IN PAYMENT OF THIS AGREEMENT FOR MORE THAN
FIFTEEN DAYS, A LATE CHARGE EQUAL TO FIVE PERCENT OF THE AMOUNT DUE PLUS
INTEREST FROM THE DATE THEREOF AT A RATE OF ONE AND ONE-HALF (1 1/2)
PERCENT
PER MONTH (18 PER ANNUM) OR SUCH MAXIMUM AMOUNT ALLOWED BY LAW, AND IF
PLACED IN THE HANDS OF AN ATTORNEY FOR COLLECTION. ALL ALLOWABLE
ATTORNEY'S
FEES AND LEGAL AND FILING FEES SHALL BE PAID BY THE CUSTOMER.


I wonder about coordination of money from the Insurance company vs when
the
contractor is going to be doing the work. Do they normally not begin
work
until the insurance company has agreed to the costs?


6. COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REVOKE THIS PROPOSAL 90 DAYS FROM
DATE
ACCEPTED. AFTER 90 DAYS, COMPANY RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REVISE ITS PRICE
IN
ACCORDANCE WITH COSTS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME.

Is what they're saying is that they can back out any time up to 90 days
or
that it's only good for 90 days?


7. THE COMPANY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE FOR FAILURE OF PERFORMANCE DUE TO
LABOR
CONTROVERSIES, STRIKES, FIRES, WEATHER, INABILITY TO OBTAIN MATERIALS
FROM
USUAL SOURCES, OR ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE
COMPANY,
WHETHER OF A SIMILAR OR DISSIMILAR NATURE.


I wonder what constitutes a "labor controversy"?


11. IF THIS AGREEMENT IS CANCELLED BY THE CUSTOMER, CUSTOMER SHALL PAY
TO
THE COMPANY TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT (25) OF THE TOTAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT AS
LIQUIDATED DAMAGES, NOT AS A PENALTY, AND THE COMPANY AGREES TO ACCEPT
SUCH
AS A REASONABLE AND JUST COMPENSATION FOR SAID CANCELLATION. THE PARTIES
ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT DAMAGES THE COMPANY MIGHT REASONABLY ANTIC-
IPATE IN THE EVENT OF A BREACH OF THIS AGREEMENT BY CUSTOMER(S) WILL BE
DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN AND THE AMOUNT STIPULATED HEREIN IS A REASONABLE
ESTIMATE OF SUCH DAMAGES.

What if they keep stalling on work and I get sick of waiting for them
and
want to look for someone else?

12. PAYMENT SCHEDULE: DEDUCTIBLE DUE UPON INSURANCE PROVIDER APPROVAL.
FIFTY
PERCENT (50) OF THE TOTAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT DUE UPON DATE OF DELIVERY OF
APPLICABLE MATERIALS. BALANCE DUE UPON COMPLETION OF WORK. ALL PAYMENTS
MUST
BE MADE TO THE COMPANY. ONLY PAYMENTS MADE TO AND RECEIVED BY THE
COMPANY
WILL BE CONSIDERED TO SATISFY THE PAYMENT OF THIS AGREEMENT. PAYMENT
SCHEDULE SHALL NOT BE AMENDED WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE
COMPANY.


Is this normal? Btw, it's not quite what the contractor's rep said when
he
came to do a preliminary look-see. He said on the roof that they get 1/3
when they get the materials, 1/3 when they "start driving nails" and 1/3
when I was happy with the job.


15. DURING THE DURATION OF THE WORK, THE CUSTOMER'S HOMEOWNERS INSURANCE
WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY INTERIOR DAMAGE AS LONG AS THE COMPANY HAS
TAKEN
APPROPRIATE ACTION TO PROTECT THE ROOF DURING THE REPAIR OF THE ROOF.


When could this be an issue?


17. THE COMPANY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR PRE-EXISTING CONSTRUCTION
DEFICIENCIES THAT MANIFEST THEMSELVES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS,
I.E.
NAIL POPS, WOODROT, DECKING DEFLECTION, ETC. IF A CONSTRUCTION PROBLEM
IS
POINTED OUT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND COMPANY IS NOTIFIED IN WRITING,
COMPANY WILL TRY TO ASSIST CUSTOMER TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM(S) ON A TIME
AND
MATERIAL BASIS.


They seem to be referring largely to decks here which isn't an issue in
my
case, but what is a "nail pop"? Any way it could apply to a roofing job?

19. COMPANY ACCEPTS NO LIABILITY TO INDEMNIFY OR HOLD CUSTOMER HARMLESS
FOR
DAMAGES TO PERSONS OR PROPERTY, EXCEPT THOSE THAT ARE THE DIRECT RESULT
OF
COMPANY'S NEGLIGENT ERROR OR OMISSION WHICH OCCUR DURING PERFORMANCE OF
THE
COMPANY'S WORK. COMPANY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL LIABILITY FOR DAMAGES TO
PERSONS OR PROPERTY RESULTING FROM MOLD GROWTH WITHIN ANY PART OF THE
BUILDING ENVELOPE DUE TO MOISTURE ENTERING THE BUILDING ENVELOPE PRIOR
TO
COMPANY'S COMPLETION OF INSTALLATION OF THE ROOF SYSTEMS/MEMBRANE,
SIDING,
WINDOW AND GUTTER SYSTEMS OR AS THE RESULT OF DAMAGE TO OR PENETRATION
OF
THE INSTALLED ROOF SYSTEMS/MEMBRANE, SIDING, WINDOW AND GUTTER SYSTEMS
BY
OTHERS. CUSTOMER UNDERSTANDS AND AGREES THAT COMPANY SHALL HAVE NO
RESPONSIBILITY AT ANY TIME AFTER COMPLETION OF THE WORK FOR DAMAGES OF
ANY
KIND TO PERSONS OR PROP
ERTY LOCATED BELOW THE INSTALLED ROOF SYSTEMS/MEMBRANE, SIDING, WINDOW
AND
GUTTER SYSTEMS, WHETHER OR NOT SUCH DAMAGES RESULT FROM (A) LEAKS OR
WEATHER-ORIENTED SOURCES OR (B) MOLD GROWTH.


Any problems here?


20. THE COMPANY'S MONETARY DAMAGE LIABILITY FOR ANY CLAIM OF PROPERTY
DAMAGE
ARISING OUT OF THE COMPANY'S PERFORMANCE OR NON-PERFORMANCE OF THIS
AGREEMENTSHALL NOT EXCEED THE TOTAL AGREEMENT AMOUNT.


I'm fuzzy on what's considered "the total agreement amount".


23. FLORIDA LAW APPLIES TO THIS AGREEMENT. ANY LEGAL PROCEEDING RELATING
TO
THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE FILED EXCLUSIVELY WITH THE COUNTY OR CIRCUIT
COURT
OF ORANGE COUNTY, FL. THE RIGHT TO JURY TRIAL IS WAIVED.

The right to a jury trial is waived? Could this come back to bite me? I
wonder under what circumstances it could become an issue.


24. THIS AGREEMENT IS COMPOSED OF THIS BACK PAGE, THE FRONT SIDE OF THE
AGREEMENT AND A SEPARATE PAGE WHICH CONTAINS A MANDATORY FLORIDA
DISCLOSURE
REGRADING CONSTRUCTION LIEN LAW. AND ALL MATTERS INCORPORATED HEREIN BY
REFERENCE AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE AGREEMENT BY THE PARTIES.


Any thoughts?


What I'm looking for is if you feel these seem like normal, reasonable
provisions or if you see anything that's questionable.

Thanks for all shared wisdom.