I recently puchased a home and wanted the deck stained. The painters
of my home convinced me to use a paint product on the deck called ICI
"wood pride". I thought that it would give the wood a stained color
but instead it just looks like paint!

I am crestfallen! The deck is huge. It was a beautiful wood deck that
was sun-bleached now it is just all red brick in color and I hate it.

I really wanted the deck restored with some sort of natural appearing
redwood stain.

Any suggestions?

Wanda

In article .com,
says...

I recently puchased a home and wanted the deck stained. The painters
of my home convinced me to use a paint product on the deck called ICI
"wood pride". I thought that it would give the wood a stained color
but instead it just looks like paint!

I am crestfallen! The deck is huge. It was a beautiful wood deck that
was sun-bleached now it is just all red brick in color and I hate it.

I really wanted the deck restored with some sort of natural appearing
redwood stain.

Any suggestions?

Sounds like they stained, but used a solid stain. Possibly, because the deck
was in such condition that a more transparent stain wouldn't look good.

Banty


--

Pics?

wrote in message
oups.com...

I recently puchased a home and wanted the deck stained. The painters
of my home convinced me to use a paint product on the deck called ICI
"wood pride". I thought that it would give the wood a stained color
but instead it just looks like paint!

No such brand is listed on the ICI web site
http://www.icipaints.com/Home/Jsp/indexflash.htm
If the contractor lied to you you have the basis of
a claim that he put right what he misrepresented.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:55:15 -0400, someone wrote:

...convinced me to use a paint product on the deck called ICI
"wood pride". I thought that it would give the wood a stained color
but instead it just looks like paint!

No such brand is listed on the ICI web site
...
If the contractor lied to you you have the basis of
a claim that he put right what he misrepresented.

What's the actual alleged misrepresentation, that it's not ICI or that
it isn't actually called "wood pride"? Suppose it is called something
else, so what? IF she paid for ICI and they used a cheaper brand,
then she could get money back.

But it hardly seems like the correct NAME of the product effects how
it looks. The Q would be, what info did she ask about how the product
would look, was misrepresented?

Her misconception is not necessarily their misrepresentation. Did she
specify that she wanted the joib to look like "wood a stained color",
did they represent that it would, OR did she agree to use a solid
color and they did, and it wasn't waht she thought it was, which was
HER error....


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.

"v" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:55:15 -0400, someone wrote:

...convinced me to use a paint product on the deck called ICI
"wood pride". I thought that it would give the wood a stained color
but instead it just looks like paint!

No such brand is listed on the ICI web site
...
If the contractor lied to you you have the basis of
a claim that he put right what he misrepresented.

What's the actual alleged misrepresentation, that it's not ICI or that
it isn't actually called "wood pride"? Suppose it is called something
else, so what? IF she paid for ICI and they used a cheaper brand,
then she could get money back.

vze8f3tq seems to misunderstand "claim."
1. If the contractor proposed ABC and used ABC and
the client disliked the results the client may be able
to claim a refund for the cost of ABC.
2. If the contractor proposed ABC and used DEF,
with unsatisfactory results, the clieint may be able
to claim to have the work undone and redone -- which
would cost a lot more than a refund for materials alone.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
the contractor used ABC with unsatisfactory results

Don Phillipson wrote:
"v" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:55:15 -0400, someone wrote:

...convinced me to use a paint product on the deck called ICI
"wood pride". I thought that it would give the wood a stained color
but instead it just looks like paint!

No such brand is listed on the ICI web site
...
If the contractor lied to you you have the basis of
a claim that he put right what he misrepresented.

What's the actual alleged misrepresentation, that it's not ICI or that
it isn't actually called "wood pride"? Suppose it is called something
else, so what? IF she paid for ICI and they used a cheaper brand,
then she could get money back.

vze8f3tq seems to misunderstand "claim."
1. If the contractor proposed ABC and used ABC and
the client disliked the results the client may be able
to claim a refund for the cost of ABC.

The client can claim anything, but getting it is a different story.
If the contract called for the job to be done with ABC, and that is
what was used, the client is gonna have a tough time getting a refund
just because they don't like the way it looks. They would have to
show that either the product was totally unsuited to be used on a wood
deck, that the product was applied incorrectly, or that the painter
drastically misrepresented what it would look like. It sounds like the
latter is the main complaint, but that is going to be very hard to
prove, as it will come down to one party's word vs the other. I hope
the client has witnesses to what was said.

BTW, the idea that the claim in the above situation is somehow limited
to just the cost of the materials is incorrect. If the client can show
conclusively that the contractor promised it would look like one thing
and it turned out totally different, the client would be entitled to
whatever it takes to make it right, including labor and materials
beyond what was initially involved. However, as I said, this is a
difficult thing to prove.

The big mistake here was in not reading the spec of the stain and then
trying it out on a small inconspicuous section. There is no way of
knowing how something like this will look, particulary when wood grain
is involved, until you actually try it. ICI makes "wood pride" in many
varieties ranging from semi-transparent to solid. I agree with Banty,
that it sounds like a solid was used, which is more like paint, in that
it covers up the wood. What condition was the wood in? If it was in
less than very good shape, that would be a reason to use a solid.




2. If the contractor proposed ABC and used DEF,
with unsatisfactory results, the clieint may be able
to claim to have the work undone and redone -- which
would cost a lot more than a refund for materials alone.

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
the contractor used ABC with unsatisfactory results

On 13 Jul 2006 19:49:42 -0700, someone wrote:


.... ICI makes "wood pride" in many
varieties ranging from semi-transparent to solid.

That is the direction I was going. This delusional posteer claims
that (1) there is no such ICI product as "wood pride" and that (2)
THEREFORE there was "misrepresentation", and that (3) therefore they
are gonna have a claim for damages.

To get damages for a 'misrepresentation, the misrepresentation has to
be MATERIAL (not just ABOUT the "materials") and there had to be
Detrimental Reliance upon the misrepresentation.

If the only misrepresentation was that the contractor claimed the
stuff was called "wood pride" but it wasn't, that has no connection to
any damages anyway. But yet it looks like there IS a product called
that, so what's the problem?

If the contractor SAID it would look like one thing, but it looked
like another, that would be DIFFERENT than claiming he said it was
called "wood pride" but instead it was called something else.


Reply to NG only - this e.mail address goes to a kill file.