"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, 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?

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

wrote:

"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, 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?

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

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)."

http://www.paradfirm.com/contracts.html

"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)."


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.

"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.

El lunes, 1 de agosto de 2005, 20:21:39 (UTC-5), Doc escribió:
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.

On 02-Sep-17 10:07 PM, wrote:
El lunes, 1 de agosto de 2005, 20:21:39 (UTC-5), Doc escribió:
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.

It's onerous and very definitely all written to favor the contractor.
Excessive imo and worrisome that a contractor goes to such extremes in
the verbiage to create a skewed playing field for himself in case of any
dispute. Surprisingly, unless it's somewhere else, it doesn't say
anything about how long the proposal is valid from the date of tender to
acceptance.

A couple of specifics --

6. They can back out up to 90 days from the time you sign the contract
with no penalty to either party. If work isn't completed in the 90
days, the cost estimates are no longer in effect. Surprisingly, unless
it's somewhere else, it doesn't say anything about how long the proposal
is valid from the date of tender to acceptance.

3,12. You've got to come up with the deductible first and either have
the amounts inside two weeks of their billings or face usurious
interest. Whether the insurance company will pay the promptly is
something you'll have little control over; some are pretty good and will
pay up front, others will only begin reimbursement to you when you
present them with the contractor's bills. Either way, only 15 days
instead of 30 is specifically designed to bleed more money from the
customer rather than being a legitimate delay-to-pay penalty clause.

17. "Decking" also refers to the roofing substrate and "nail pops" are
significant there as they come back through the tar
paper/membrane/shingle and cause leaks. They're also saying the
estimate doesn't cover any hidden damage or other issues uncovered when
do the tearoff--unless you tell them about it specifically in writing
first and then it's only T&M on top of the estimate. Other than that,
they've got free license to just ignore anything they find and cover it
back up; no recourse available if there's a problem and six months later
when the seal around the chimney fails owing to it having been
previously rotted out and they ignored it but you didn't know about it
-- tough!

I'd not sign this as is -- I'd make many annotations such as replacing
the 15 days with 30; noting payments will be contingent upon the
insurance company's payout schedule, etc., on the financial end.

I'd also want to have many references to previous customers to know
whether they actually do reasonable work and so the terms don't have
much real danger or whether they are, in fact, simply using the contract
as an extortion vehicle and are notorious for doing such things.

It's really, really tough in the event of natural disasters to find
reputable contractors; the number of bad ones outnumbers good probably
at least 5:1 and in major disasters when they out-of-town fly-by-nights
show up more like 50:1.

--

On 9/2/2017 11:07 PM, wrote:
El lunes, 1 de agosto de 2005, 20:21:39 (UTC-5), Doc escribió:
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.


I've been working on getting a contractor to erect a new Trex or Azek
deck this fall requiring removal of old with licensing and inspection
building under new codes. I had discussed this in this group in the
spring but now want to get it done this fall.

With 2 lawyer sons, I have ready access to legal advice and just last
week my wife bounced a contract off one son for his opinion. He came
back with a list of our own that contractor would need to sign if we
sighed his. My wife sent these to the contractor and he withdrew his
bid rather than work with us.

Earlier in the year we had rejected a bid similar to this because of all
the attached legal garbage.

It should be simple. Contractor should be responsible for his work and
any damage that he might incur including that of his employees being
injured and I am responsible for paying in a timely manner.

On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 10:23:40 AM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 02-Sep-17 10:07 PM, wrote:
El lunes, 1 de agosto de 2005, 20:21:39 (UTC-5), Doc escribió:
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.

It's onerous and very definitely all written to favor the contractor.
Excessive imo and worrisome that a contractor goes to such extremes in
the verbiage to create a skewed playing field for himself in case of any
dispute. Surprisingly, unless it's somewhere else, it doesn't say
anything about how long the proposal is valid from the date of tender to
acceptance.

A couple of specifics --

6. They can back out up to 90 days from the time you sign the contract
with no penalty to either party. If work isn't completed in the 90
days, the cost estimates are no longer in effect. Surprisingly, unless
it's somewhere else, it doesn't say anything about how long the proposal
is valid from the date of tender to acceptance.

3,12. You've got to come up with the deductible first and either have
the amounts inside two weeks of their billings or face usurious
interest. Whether the insurance company will pay the promptly is
something you'll have little control over; some are pretty good and will
pay up front, others will only begin reimbursement to you when you
present them with the contractor's bills. Either way, only 15 days
instead of 30 is specifically designed to bleed more money from the
customer rather than being a legitimate delay-to-pay penalty clause.

17. "Decking" also refers to the roofing substrate and "nail pops" are
significant there as they come back through the tar
paper/membrane/shingle and cause leaks. They're also saying the
estimate doesn't cover any hidden damage or other issues uncovered when
do the tearoff--unless you tell them about it specifically in writing
first and then it's only T&M on top of the estimate. Other than that,
they've got free license to just ignore anything they find and cover it
back up; no recourse available if there's a problem and six months later
when the seal around the chimney fails owing to it having been
previously rotted out and they ignored it but you didn't know about it
-- tough!

I'd not sign this as is -- I'd make many annotations such as replacing
the 15 days with 30; noting payments will be contingent upon the
insurance company's payout schedule, etc., on the financial end.

I'd also want to have many references to previous customers to know
whether they actually do reasonable work and so the terms don't have
much real danger or whether they are, in fact, simply using the contract
as an extortion vehicle and are notorious for doing such things.

It's really, really tough in the event of natural disasters to find
reputable contractors; the number of bad ones outnumbers good probably
at least 5:1 and in major disasters when they out-of-town fly-by-nights
show up more like 50:1.

--

I guess you didn't see this was from 2005?

On 9/3/2017 8:51 AM, Frank wrote:
On 9/2/2017 11:07 PM, wrote:
El lunes, 1 de agosto de 2005, 20:21:39 (UTC-5), Doc escribió:
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.


I've been working on getting a contractor to erect a new Trex or Azek
deck this fall requiring removal of old with licensing and inspection
building under new codes. I had discussed this in this group in the
spring but now want to get it done this fall.

With 2 lawyer sons, I have ready access to legal advice and just last
week my wife bounced a contract off one son for his opinion. He came
back with a list of our own that contractor would need to sign if we
sighed his. My wife sent these to the contractor and he withdrew his
bid rather than work with us.


That is the sign of a bad attorney, but is typical. He should have
minimally adjusted the contractor's language to something that would be
acceptable to you and not so "in your face" to him. I have done that a
number of times. You may need to explain your thinking to him and why
it is not a problem for him.

I have done such since at least 2005.

On 9/3/2017 11:51 AM, Frank wrote:

I've been working on getting a contractor to erect a new Trex or Azek
deck this fall requiring removal of old with licensing and inspection
building under new codes.Â* I had discussed this in this group in the
spring but now want to get it done this fall.

With 2 lawyer sons, I have ready access to legal advice and just last
week my wife bounced a contract off one son for his opinion.Â* He came
back with a list of our own that contractor would need to sign if we
sighed his.Â* My wife sent these to the contractor and he withdrew his
bid rather than work with us.

Earlier in the year we had rejected a bid similar to this because of all
the attached legal garbage.

It should be simple.Â* Contractor should be responsible for his work and
any damage that he might incur including that of his employees being
injured and I am responsible for paying in a timely manner.

It is simple but the more lawyers you add the more complex it gets.

Make a simple contract that has your last sentence, what is to be built,
the price, and get on with it. When my step-father was in the business,
my mother types up a simple contract, not more than one paragraph for
some major kitchen rebuilds. It worked well for years, never had a
problem as the work was done properly and at the price agreed. Mom knew
how to take care of the inspections too.

The contractor was smart to withdraw. I used to do some part time work
years ago. Small jobs, painting, installing windows and storm doors.
The only job I ever walked away from was a lawyer. For the few bucks
I'd make on a Saturday it was not worth the potential risk of dealing
with him.

If you know the contractor by reputation, you don't need a fancy
contract. We did a $2million rebuild of our plant and had no contracts
like the one in this thread.

On 9/3/2017 12:11 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 10:23:40 AM UTC-4, dpb wrote:
On 02-Sep-17 10:07 PM, wrote:
El lunes, 1 de agosto de 2005, 20:21:39 (UTC-5), Doc escribió:
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 guess you didn't see this was from 2005?


I noticed that, but suddenly it may be relevant to the people of Texas.

On 9/3/2017 12:16 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 9/3/2017 8:51 AM, Frank wrote:
On 9/2/2017 11:07 PM, wrote:
El lunes, 1 de agosto de 2005, 20:21:39 (UTC-5), Doc escribió:
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.Â*Â* 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.Â*Â* 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.Â*Â* 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.


I've been working on getting a contractor to erect a new Trex or Azek
deck this fall requiring removal of old with licensing and inspection
building under new codes.Â* I had discussed this in this group in the
spring but now want to get it done this fall.

With 2 lawyer sons, I have ready access to legal advice and just last
week my wife bounced a contract off one son for his opinion.Â* He came
back with a list of our own that contractor would need to sign if we
sighed his.Â* My wife sent these to the contractor and he withdrew his
bid rather than work with us.


That is the sign of a bad attorney, but is typical.Â* He should have
minimally adjusted the contractor's language to something that would be
acceptable to you and not so "in your face" to him.Â* I have done that a
number of times.Â* You may need to explain your thinking to him and why
it is not a problem for him.

I have done such since at least 2005.Â*

What he had just looked like boiler plate to me lifted from anywhere.
My friend that recommended him signed the same contract himself and he
is a lawyer.

Everything can be fine as long as you do not have a problem.

My one son is a lawyer for an insurance company and is an expert on
worker's comp. He gave us some good advice and told us to make sure we
have a worker's comp rider on our home owners insurance. While we have
high liability insurance it may not cover workmen and if contractor says
he has it and does not we could be liable. Son said he is working on 5
cases right now with this issue.

A problem here in DE, is that being a small state we have contractors
coming in from nearby PA, NJ and MD. While these out of state
contractors need license and insurance to work in DE and bought it in
their state it may only cover their state. Most clerks do not know this
and may issue a license to an out of state contractor who showed him a
policy that he was insured. Even a lot of the out of state contractors
do not know that their insurance only covers the state of issue.

This is the stuff that my son contends with all the time.

On 9/3/2017 2:34 PM, Frank wrote:



Everything can be fine as long as you do not have a problem.

My one son is a lawyer for an insurance company and is an expert on
worker's comp.Â* He gave us some good advice and told us to make sure we
have a worker's comp rider on our home owners insurance.Â* While we have
high liability insurance it may not cover workmen and if contractor says
he has it and does not we could be liable.Â* Son said he is working on 5
cases right now with this issue.

A problem here in DE, is that being a small state we have contractors
coming in from nearby PA, NJ and MD.Â* While these out of state
contractors need license and insurance to work in DE and bought it in
their state it may only cover their state.Â* Most clerks do not know this
and may issue a license to an out of state contractor who showed him a
policy that he was insured.Â* Even a lot of the out of state contractors
do not know that their insurance only covers the state of issue.

This is the stuff that my son contends with all the time.

You don't need a layer for this. The contractor just has to call his
agent and give him your information. The agent will send you a
certificate of insurance naming you.

If it is a one man job done by the owner, he will need liability but not
workman's comp. The guy that took down my tree did that and had the
certificate in an hour when he was going to start.

On 9/3/2017 2:45 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/3/2017 2:34 PM, Frank wrote:



Everything can be fine as long as you do not have a problem.

My one son is a lawyer for an insurance company and is an expert on
worker's comp.Â* He gave us some good advice and told us to make sure
we have a worker's comp rider on our home owners insurance.Â* While we
have high liability insurance it may not cover workmen and if
contractor says he has it and does not we could be liable.Â* Son said
he is working on 5 cases right now with this issue.

A problem here in DE, is that being a small state we have contractors
coming in from nearby PA, NJ and MD.Â* While these out of state
contractors need license and insurance to work in DE and bought it in
their state it may only cover their state.Â* Most clerks do not know
this and may issue a license to an out of state contractor who showed
him a policy that he was insured.Â* Even a lot of the out of state
contractors do not know that their insurance only covers the state of
issue.

This is the stuff that my son contends with all the time.

You don't need a layer for this.Â* The contractor just has to call his
agent and give him your information.Â* The agent will send you a
certificate of insurance naming you.

If it is a one man job done by the owner, he will need liability but not
workman's comp.Â* The guy that took down my tree did that and had the
certificate in an hour when he was going to start.

One contractor I'm talking to is from nearby PA. Says he has all the
insurance but I will double check if I want to use him.

On 9/3/2017 11:45 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/3/2017 2:34 PM, Frank wrote:



Everything can be fine as long as you do not have a problem.

My one son is a lawyer for an insurance company and is an expert on
worker's comp.Â* He gave us some good advice and told us to make sure we
have a worker's comp rider on our home owners insurance.Â* While we have
high liability insurance it may not cover workmen and if contractor says
he has it and does not we could be liable.Â* Son said he is working on 5
cases right now with this issue.

A problem here in DE, is that being a small state we have contractors
coming in from nearby PA, NJ and MD.Â* While these out of state
contractors need license and insurance to work in DE and bought it in
their state it may only cover their state.Â* Most clerks do not know this
and may issue a license to an out of state contractor who showed him a
policy that he was insured.Â* Even a lot of the out of state contractors
do not know that their insurance only covers the state of issue.

This is the stuff that my son contends with all the time.

You don't need a layer for this. The contractor just has to call his
agent and give him your information. The agent will send you a
certificate of insurance naming you.

If it is a one man job done by the owner, he will need liability but not
workman's comp. The guy that took down my tree did that and had the
certificate in an hour when he was going to start.



a certificate of insurance naming you is worthless - the certificate
itself says so. You need a policy endorsement naming you, or a blanket
additional insured coverage that covers you by its terms. If its terms
are "as required by written contract with the insured" make sure your
contract includes this requirement or the blanket coverage won't cover you.

On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 4:23:35 PM UTC-4, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 9/3/2017 11:45 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/3/2017 2:34 PM, Frank wrote:



Everything can be fine as long as you do not have a problem.

My one son is a lawyer for an insurance company and is an expert on
worker's comp.Â* He gave us some good advice and told us to make sure we
have a worker's comp rider on our home owners insurance.Â* While we have
high liability insurance it may not cover workmen and if contractor says
he has it and does not we could be liable.Â* Son said he is working on 5
cases right now with this issue.

A problem here in DE, is that being a small state we have contractors
coming in from nearby PA, NJ and MD.Â* While these out of state
contractors need license and insurance to work in DE and bought it in
their state it may only cover their state.Â* Most clerks do not know this
and may issue a license to an out of state contractor who showed him a
policy that he was insured.Â* Even a lot of the out of state contractors
do not know that their insurance only covers the state of issue.

This is the stuff that my son contends with all the time.

You don't need a layer for this. The contractor just has to call his
agent and give him your information. The agent will send you a
certificate of insurance naming you.

If it is a one man job done by the owner, he will need liability but not
workman's comp. The guy that took down my tree did that and had the
certificate in an hour when he was going to start.



a certificate of insurance naming you is worthless - the certificate
itself says so. You need a policy endorsement naming you, or a blanket
additional insured coverage that covers you by its terms. If its terms
are "as required by written contract with the insured" make sure your
contract includes this requirement or the blanket coverage won't cover you.


I've never seen a certificate of insurance provided by a contractor
that names "you". It simply shows what particular insurance a
contractor has that covers him for liability, workman's comp, etc.

On 9/3/2017 2:05 PM, trader_4 wrote:
On Sunday, September 3, 2017 at 4:23:35 PM UTC-4, Taxed and Spent wrote:
On 9/3/2017 11:45 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/3/2017 2:34 PM, Frank wrote:



Everything can be fine as long as you do not have a problem.

My one son is a lawyer for an insurance company and is an expert on
worker's comp.Â* He gave us some good advice and told us to make sure we
have a worker's comp rider on our home owners insurance.Â* While we have
high liability insurance it may not cover workmen and if contractor says
he has it and does not we could be liable.Â* Son said he is working on 5
cases right now with this issue.

A problem here in DE, is that being a small state we have contractors
coming in from nearby PA, NJ and MD.Â* While these out of state
contractors need license and insurance to work in DE and bought it in
their state it may only cover their state.Â* Most clerks do not know this
and may issue a license to an out of state contractor who showed him a
policy that he was insured.Â* Even a lot of the out of state contractors
do not know that their insurance only covers the state of issue.

This is the stuff that my son contends with all the time.

You don't need a layer for this. The contractor just has to call his
agent and give him your information. The agent will send you a
certificate of insurance naming you.

If it is a one man job done by the owner, he will need liability but not
workman's comp. The guy that took down my tree did that and had the
certificate in an hour when he was going to start.



a certificate of insurance naming you is worthless - the certificate
itself says so. You need a policy endorsement naming you, or a blanket
additional insured coverage that covers you by its terms. If its terms
are "as required by written contract with the insured" make sure your
contract includes this requirement or the blanket coverage won't cover you.


I've never seen a certificate of insurance provided by a contractor
that names "you". It simply shows what particular insurance a
contractor has that covers him for liability, workman's comp, etc.


Wise property owners insist on being named as Additional Insureds, and
making sure all the "i's" are dotted and all the "t's" crossed.

On 9/3/2017 5:05 PM, trader_4 wrote:


You don't need a layer for this. The contractor just has to call his
agent and give him your information. The agent will send you a
certificate of insurance naming you.

If it is a one man job done by the owner, he will need liability but not
workman's comp. The guy that took down my tree did that and had the
certificate in an hour when he was going to start.



a certificate of insurance naming you is worthless - the certificate
itself says so. You need a policy endorsement naming you, or a blanket
additional insured coverage that covers you by its terms. If its terms
are "as required by written contract with the insured" make sure your
contract includes this requirement or the blanket coverage won't cover you.


I've never seen a certificate of insurance provided by a contractor
that names "you". It simply shows what particular insurance a
contractor has that covers him for liability, workman's comp, etc.


The certificates I get name us. I don't have them since I retired but
some regular service providers (such as the air compressor service
company) would send one every year. The one from my tree trimmer did
to. It is a standard form they all use. '
http://www.mcsl.org/9acord_formblank.pdf\

On 9/3/2017 3:25 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On 9/3/2017 5:05 PM, trader_4 wrote:


You don't need a layer for this. The contractor just has to call his
agent and give him your information. The agent will send you a
certificate of insurance naming you.

If it is a one man job done by the owner, he will need liability but not
workman's comp. The guy that took down my tree did that and had the
certificate in an hour when he was going to start.



a certificate of insurance naming you is worthless - the certificate
itself says so. You need a policy endorsement naming you, or a blanket
additional insured coverage that covers you by its terms. If its terms
are "as required by written contract with the insured" make sure your
contract includes this requirement or the blanket coverage won't cover you.


I've never seen a certificate of insurance provided by a contractor
that names "you". It simply shows what particular insurance a
contractor has that covers him for liability, workman's comp, etc.


The certificates I get name us. I don't have them since I retired but
some regular service providers (such as the air compressor service
company) would send one every year. The one from my tree trimmer did
to. It is a standard form they all use. '
http://www.mcsl.org/9acord_formblank.pdf\



See the second warning right up on to?

On Sun, 03 Sep 2017 09:23:31 -0500, dpb wrote:

On 02-Sep-17 10:07 PM, wrote:
El lunes, 1 de agosto de 2005, 20:21:39 (UTC-5), Doc escribió:
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.

It's onerous and very definitely all written to favor the contractor.
Excessive imo and worrisome that a contractor goes to such extremes in
the verbiage to create a skewed playing field for himself in case of any
dispute. Surprisingly, unless it's somewhere else, it doesn't say
anything about how long the proposal is valid from the date of tender to
acceptance.

A couple of specifics --

6. They can back out up to 90 days from the time you sign the contract
with no penalty to either party. If work isn't completed in the 90
days, the cost estimates are no longer in effect. Surprisingly, unless
it's somewhere else, it doesn't say anything about how long the proposal
is valid from the date of tender to acceptance.

3,12. You've got to come up with the deductible first and either have
the amounts inside two weeks of their billings or face usurious
interest. Whether the insurance company will pay the promptly is
something you'll have little control over; some are pretty good and will
pay up front, others will only begin reimbursement to you when you
present them with the contractor's bills. Either way, only 15 days
instead of 30 is specifically designed to bleed more money from the
customer rather than being a legitimate delay-to-pay penalty clause.

17. "Decking" also refers to the roofing substrate and "nail pops" are
significant there as they come back through the tar
paper/membrane/shingle and cause leaks. They're also saying the
estimate doesn't cover any hidden damage or other issues uncovered when
do the tearoff--unless you tell them about it specifically in writing
first and then it's only T&M on top of the estimate. Other than that,
they've got free license to just ignore anything they find and cover it
back up; no recourse available if there's a problem and six months later
when the seal around the chimney fails owing to it having been
previously rotted out and they ignored it but you didn't know about it
-- tough!

I'd not sign this as is -- I'd make many annotations such as replacing
the 15 days with 30; noting payments will be contingent upon the
insurance company's payout schedule, etc., on the financial end.

I'd also want to have many references to previous customers to know
whether they actually do reasonable work and so the terms don't have
much real danger or whether they are, in fact, simply using the contract
as an extortion vehicle and are notorious for doing such things.

It's really, really tough in the event of natural disasters to find
reputable contractors; the number of bad ones outnumbers good probably
at least 5:1 and in major disasters when they out-of-town fly-by-nights
show up more like 50:1.
From what I've heard from friends with winter homes in Florida you
are being generous. The 5:1 is optiministic on a GOOD day - mabee 10:1
in case of a minor disaster with local contractors, and one in a
hundred when it comes to outside contractors after a major disaster
(The "fly-by-nighters").One of the big issues the snowbirds report is
getting quality work done at any price, on any kind of a schedule,
particularly after a storm.