I just got installed granite countertops in the kitchen, from
pre-fabbed slabs. I noticed that one of the smaller countertops got 2
cracks, at the very corner where the bullnose meets the wall; one of
the cracks, about 1" long, is in the slab itself, the other one is in
the glued quarter-round of the bullnose.

The cracks are installer's fault (they apparently happened while he was
cutting the slab). He put some glue on them, polished (so it now looks
Ok), and thinks his job is done. My question is - should I be worried
about the cracks, and make him to replace the countertop, or these
cracks is something that happens often ?

"ivk" wrote in message
ups.com...
I just got installed granite countertops in the kitchen, from
pre-fabbed slabs. I noticed that one of the smaller countertops got 2
cracks, at the very corner where the bullnose meets the wall; one of
the cracks, about 1" long, is in the slab itself, the other one is in
the glued quarter-round of the bullnose.

The cracks are installer's fault (they apparently happened while he was
cutting the slab). He put some glue on them, polished (so it now looks
Ok), and thinks his job is done. My question is - should I be worried
about the cracks, and make him to replace the countertop, or these
cracks is something that happens often ?

Did you pay for a cracked counter top?

SQLit wrote:

"ivk" wrote in message
ups.com...

I just got installed granite countertops in the kitchen, from
pre-fabbed slabs. I noticed that one of the smaller countertops got 2
cracks, at the very corner where the bullnose meets the wall; one of
the cracks, about 1" long, is in the slab itself, the other one is in
the glued quarter-round of the bullnose.

The cracks are installer's fault (they apparently happened while he was
cutting the slab). He put some glue on them, polished (so it now looks
Ok), and thinks his job is done. My question is - should I be worried
about the cracks, and make him to replace the countertop, or these
cracks is something that happens often ?


Did you pay for a cracked counter top?



Hi,
Wonder if you got discount for imperfect material? I wouldn't accept it
unless offered substantial discount. Just like buying a new car with
scratched paint finish. Good paint job costs a lot, LOL.
Tony

Did you pay for a cracked counter top?

Yes, the granite was mine

ivk wrote:
I just got installed granite countertops in the kitchen, from
pre-fabbed slabs. I noticed that one of the smaller countertops got 2
cracks, at the very corner where the bullnose meets the wall; one of
the cracks, about 1" long, is in the slab itself, the other one is in
the glued quarter-round of the bullnose.

The cracks are installer's fault (they apparently happened while he was
cutting the slab). He put some glue on them, polished (so it now looks
Ok), and thinks his job is done. My question is - should I be worried
about the cracks, and make him to replace the countertop, or these
cracks is something that happens often ?

If I understnad you, you furnished the granite. This is one of those
all too common situations where an owner provides materials to an
installer in the interest of saving some money. When a problem arises,
and the material gets damaged, the owner "knows" it was the fault of
the installers and expects them to correct it, including buying new
material. The contractor "knows" that he's working for basically
straight labor and there was no contingency amount included for faulty
materials as they're the owner's responsibility.

Basically it boils down to the owner trying to save a few bucks but
still expecting fullservice contracting. It's called wanting "to have
your cake and eat it, too."

If you want the installer to replace the granite, furnish him with some
more. He'll eat the labor and you'll eat the granite. You'll both
have learned something.

R

I agree with ricodjour but ask your self if you can live with it, you
wont have any weight on it so it will hold if he used the proper
adhesive, you say it looks ok so it is not worth the headache, He will
blame you for picking a piece he will say he would not have used for
some reason or another.

On 9 Dec 2005 22:57:02 -0800, "RicodJour"
wrote:
SNIPPED

If I understnad you, you furnished the granite. This is one of those
all too common situations where an owner provides materials to an
installer in the interest of saving some money. When a problem arises,
and the material gets damaged, the owner "knows" it was the fault of
the installers and expects them to correct it, including buying new
material. The contractor "knows" that he's working for basically
straight labor and there was no contingency amount included for faulty
materials as they're the owner's responsibility.


The contractor knows best what his track record is with regard to
damages that he might cause. Ego plays a part here.

Basically it boils down to the owner trying to save a few bucks but
still expecting fullservice contracting. It's called wanting "to have
your cake and eat it, too."


I disagree here. The homeowner has paid for quality labor, and does
expect the material that he supplied to be damaged during performance
of the contractor's labor.

If you want the installer to replace the granite, furnish him with some
more. He'll eat the labor and you'll eat the granite. You'll both
have learned something.

R

Scenario:

Homeowner supplies a two piece toilet. The tank lever needs to be
swapped with a trip lever (supplied by homeowner) of a differnt color.

During the swapping process by contractor, the surface of the toilet
tank becomes chipped.

Are you arguing that the contractor is not obligated for replacement
(material and labor) of the tank that he damaged ?

"Scenario:
Homeowner supplies a two piece toilet. The tank lever needs to be
swapped with a trip lever (supplied by homeowner) of a differnt color.
During the swapping process by contractor, the surface of the toilet
tank becomes chipped. Are you arguing that the contractor is not
obligated for replacement
(material and labor) of the tank that he damaged ? "


If the tank was a Kohler and the damage was caused by the contractor,
then the contractor should replace it. However, if the tank was some
no-name item bought on Ebay where it chipped because it was an inferior
product and couldn't stand having a nut tightened on it to normal
torque, then the homeowner should replace it.

And that's the essence of the problem with the countertops. I'm no
expert in granite, but I would think there would be different quallity
grades. And do we know if by visual inspection an installer can tell
for sure that a piece won't crack because of some internal condition?
I would think that some small percentage might crack despite the
installer doing everything right.

I think Rico makes a good point that whenever you start slitting up a
job like this, it becomes problematic. If you contracted for a
complete job, the situation is clear and it would be the contractor who
would have to fix the whole thing. I think the suggestion to split the
cost of replacement or live with it is probably the best solution
available.

On 10 Dec 2005 06:10:48 -0800, wrote:

"Scenario:
Homeowner supplies a two piece toilet. The tank lever needs to be
swapped with a trip lever (supplied by homeowner) of a differnt color.
During the swapping process by contractor, the surface of the toilet
tank becomes chipped. Are you arguing that the contractor is not
obligated for replacement
(material and labor) of the tank that he damaged ? "


If the tank was a Kohler and the damage was caused by the contractor,
then the contractor should replace it. However, if the tank was some
no-name item bought on Ebay where it chipped because it was an inferior
product and couldn't stand having a nut tightened on it to normal
torque, then the homeowner should replace it.

And that's the essence of the problem with the countertops. I'm no
expert in granite, but I would think there would be different quallity
grades. And do we know if by visual inspection an installer can tell
for sure that a piece won't crack because of some internal condition?
I would think that some small percentage might crack despite the
installer doing everything right.

I think Rico makes a good point that whenever you start slitting up a
job like this, it becomes problematic. If you contracted for a
complete job, the situation is clear and it would be the contractor who
would have to fix the whole thing. I think the suggestion to split the
cost of replacement or live with it is probably the best solution
available.

Not a Kohler; an American Standard Champion Oakmont right height
two-piece toilet.

In this instance, I have a photo showing the toilet installed and w/o
the replacement trip lever yet. Also have a photo after the trip
lever was replaced, and the chipped surface is obvious.

I think that is enough evidence to prove that the damage was done by
the contractor. I have receipts proving that the material is American
Standard product.

?

"Not a Kohler; an American Standard Champion Oakmont right height
two-piece toilet.

In this instance, I have a photo showing the toilet installed and w/o
the replacement trip lever yet. Also have a photo after the trip
lever was replaced, and the chipped surface is obvious.

I think that is enough evidence to prove that the damage was done by
the contractor. I have receipts proving that the material is American
Standard product. "


Yes, in that case you are right. But from what we know, your case is a
lot different than the case of the granite countertops. With an AMer
STd toilet, the contractor doesn;t have to cut granite of unknown
quality or origin. As I said, I would think some small percentage of
granite or similar material, especially depending on the quality, could
crack when cut, even if you did everything right. It's not clear to me
that in that case, it's the contractor's fault. For a kitchen shop
doing the whole job, start to finish, they likely factor that into
their overhead for the total job. When you start splitiing it up, it's
not clear who's responsible.

Vince wrote:
On 9 Dec 2005 22:57:02 -0800, "RicodJour"
wrote:
SNIPPED

If I understnad you, you furnished the granite. This is one of those
all too common situations where an owner provides materials to an
installer in the interest of saving some money. When a problem arises,
and the material gets damaged, the owner "knows" it was the fault of
the installers and expects them to correct it, including buying new
material. The contractor "knows" that he's working for basically
straight labor and there was no contingency amount included for faulty
materials as they're the owner's responsibility.


The contractor knows best what his track record is with regard to
damages that he might cause. Ego plays a part here.

Basically it boils down to the owner trying to save a few bucks but
still expecting fullservice contracting. It's called wanting "to have
your cake and eat it, too."


I disagree here. The homeowner has paid for quality labor, and does
expect the material that he supplied to be damaged during performance
of the contractor's labor.

You left out the word "not". A critical mistake in that sentence, but
an accident, I'm sure. Similar to someone slipping with a wrench.
Unfortunate, but stuff happens.

If you want the installer to replace the granite, furnish him with some
more. He'll eat the labor and you'll eat the granite. You'll both
have learned something.

R

Scenario:

Homeowner supplies a two piece toilet. The tank lever needs to be
swapped with a trip lever (supplied by homeowner) of a differnt color.

Frankly, this is such a trivial task and well within anyone's
abilities, that I question why a homeowner interested in saving money
wouldn't do it themselves.

During the swapping process by contractor, the surface of the toilet
tank becomes chipped.

Oops. Sorry.

Are you arguing that the contractor is not obligated for replacement
(material and labor) of the tank that he damaged?

So you're equating swapping a toilet handle with cutting and installing
granite slabs? You don't think there might be a _tiny_ difference in
the likelihood that something might get damaged when very heavy
objects, fragile and brittle objects, are moved about and cut with
diamond tools? Personally I think there's a hell of a difference.
Risk is the point and you're neglecting to factor that in.

If the contractor does the entire job, he will use his normal pricing
strategy and markup the materials. He will aslo figure in
contingencies for what can go wrong. Anything that can cause a problem
has a number put on it. A customer who shows signs of being a pain in
the ass will find larger numbers on his project as that is a risk.
Special order products that the contractor has never installed before
will have numbers put on them. It is the only way that a contractor
can plan for the unknown - by putting a number on it. He's taking the
risk and getting paid for it. That's how it works in everything.

Now contrast that with an owner wanting to save a few bucks and
furnishing the materials themselves. The contractor is now basically
working for straight labor. Something gets damaged - forget who is at
fault for the moment as it is not material. Where is the contractor
supposed to come up with the extra money to purchase new materials and
offset the extra time involved for which he will not get paid? Take it
from the kids lunch money? No, it comes from the next project that the
contractor works on. If the guy has been in business for a while,
he'll quickly learn that there is no free lunch - not for the owner not
for him. He'll build in contingency amounts in such a situation to
protect him from that risk, or he'll stop doing projects where the
owner furnishes materials.

In other words, the owner wants to save money and assume none of the
risk. That's not how it works. It's not fair to the contractor. Is
it safe to assume that you're concerned about fairness in your business
dealings? Think about it.

R

The contractor takes on a project for a fixed price to install a
tub/toilet/sink, etc. that are supplied by the buyer. By doing so,
the contractor assumes risk of damaging material. Any contractor that
does not factor in a contingency for possibly causing material damage
is making a mistake.

There is more than one reason why a buyer decides to furnish material
and hire a "laborer" that is bonded and insured. In my view, by
furnishing major fixtures when having a bathroom remodelled, means
that the labor cost is going to be higher than if the contractor
furnishes all material including the tub/faucet/med chest, etc.

One very likely reason for hiring "labor only" is because the
contractor does not offer what the buyer wants in terms of materials.

IOW, why should a buyer settle on a chrome or polished brass
Delta/Moen/AmStd faucet when he/she prefers to have some other mfgr
item in a color of choice ?

"The contractor takes on a project for a fixed price to install a
tub/toilet/sink, etc. that are supplied by the buyer. By doing so,
the contractor assumes risk of damaging material. Any contractor that
does not factor in a contingency for possibly causing material damage
is making a mistake. "

You think it's a simple open and shut case that the contractor "caused"
the damage. How does anyone know this? To start with, you've only
heard one side of this story. Second, when working with natural
materials, I've seen stuff that looked fine to start with, but turned
out to be less than satisfactory. Haven't you seen a piece of lumber
unexpectedly split on you? Would that be a carpenter's fault for
causing damage and should he pay for it, even though he didn't provide
the wood? I would say it is something that can be reasonably
expected to happen on occasion and it's not the carpenter's
responsibility to pay for. To lay the blame on the carpenterr, you
would have to prove that he was in some way negligent.

In the case of the granite, you are jumping to conclusions. No one
knows what kind of granite this homeowner bought, where they got it,
etc. The vast majority of people buying material somewhere and then
having someone else install it are doing it because they want to save
money. So, who knows what kind of crap they bought or where they got
it. Granite is common enough and there are enough local vendors that
would do the whole job, that it's very likely saving bucks was the
motive here too.

Here's a story of a contractor allegedly causing damage. My father was
a welding contractor. On large diameter water wells, like for
municipalities, instead of screwing lengths together, they butt them
together and weld them as they go in the ground. On a job many years
ago, after they had gone down several hundred feet, the pipe already in
the ground broke. The well driller blamed my father because he welded
the pipe together and was going to sue.

My father contacted Marquette, who made the welding rods he used. They
flew in two engineers to take samples of the pipe which were sent to
their lab for analysis. Their metalurgist's conclusion left no doubt.
The welds were perfect. The pipe on the other hand was made of cheap
crap import steel that was brittle and unfit for the purpose.
Confronted with that, the well driller folded up his tent. Following
your logic, my father would be the one clearly to blame though, because
he "damaged" it.

Vince wrote:
The contractor takes on a project for a fixed price to install a
tub/toilet/sink, etc. that are supplied by the buyer. By doing so,
the contractor assumes risk of damaging material. Any contractor that
does not factor in a contingency for possibly causing material damage
is making a mistake.

OK. How much should that contingency be? The replacement cost of the
material multiplied by his estimation of breakage. I don't like
gambling and I'm not in the insurance business. I'd just figure the
replacement cost of the material. Where's the savings now?

There is more than one reason why a buyer decides to furnish material
and hire a "laborer" that is bonded and insured. In my view, by
furnishing major fixtures when having a bathroom remodelled, means
that the labor cost is going to be higher than if the contractor
furnishes all material including the tub/faucet/med chest, etc.

One very likely reason for hiring "labor only" is because the
contractor does not offer what the buyer wants in terms of materials.

IOW, why should a buyer settle on a chrome or polished brass
Delta/Moen/AmStd faucet when he/she prefers to have some other mfgr
item in a color of choice?

Is this a "secret" supplier? Tell him what you want and and where to
get it. If the contractor doesn't want to be bothered and suggests
that the owner purchase the materials, that's slightly different, but
by no means does it mean that the owner doesn't have a vested interest
in the material or the completion of the project.

When the job is split up very specific conversations have to take place
so everyone is aware of who is responsible for what. Obviously there'd
be no reason to post if these conversations and agreements had taken
place. There's plenty of blame to go around since both parties failed
to force the issue of responsibility prior to the damage occurring

I have no idea, in either situation, whether the damage was avoidable
or not. My point is you're both getting what I like to call an
"unwanted education." Next time you can be damn sure things will be
done differently.

R

On 10 Dec 2005 12:14:34 -0800, "RicodJour"
wrote:

Vince wrote:
The contractor takes on a project for a fixed price to install a
tub/toilet/sink, etc. that are supplied by the buyer. By doing so,
the contractor assumes risk of damaging material. Any contractor that
does not factor in a contingency for possibly causing material damage
is making a mistake.

OK. How much should that contingency be?

10% of total retail cost of materials supplied by buyer.

The replacement cost of the
material multiplied by his estimation of breakage. I don't like
gambling and I'm not in the insurance business. I'd just figure the
replacement cost of the material. Where's the savings now?

With that kind of markup, you would not get the job. I don't like to
gamble either; that is why I seek out a professional to do what I have
decided not to do myself.

There is more than one reason why a buyer decides to furnish material
and hire a "laborer" that is bonded and insured. In my view, by
furnishing major fixtures when having a bathroom remodelled, means
that the labor cost is going to be higher than if the contractor
furnishes all material including the tub/faucet/med chest, etc.

One very likely reason for hiring "labor only" is because the
contractor does not offer what the buyer wants in terms of materials.

IOW, why should a buyer settle on a chrome or polished brass
Delta/Moen/AmStd faucet when he/she prefers to have some other mfgr
item in a color of choice?

Is this a "secret" supplier? Tell him what you want and and where to
get it.

A complete and detailed listing of fixtures was supplied to the
contractor, including the vendor's name and pricing that buyer was
quoted by that vendor. If the contractor wanted to, he could obtain
same fixtures at a contractor's cost and then add $$ while still
coming out less than buyer/retail pricing. In fact, the contractor
did just that: make an offer for cost of the fixtures.

If the contractor doesn't want to be bothered and suggests
that the owner purchase the materials, that's slightly different, but
by no means does it mean that the owner doesn't have a vested interest
in the material or the completion of the project.

OK. How slightly different would it be when the contractor declines
to obtain the fixtures specified by the buyer ?

The homeowner certainly has a vested interest in the material that he
supplies: if it is damged during shipment or does not fit or is wrong
item, then the project halts until an appropriate replacement item
arrives onsite.

When the job is split up very specific conversations have to take place
so everyone is aware of who is responsible for what. Obviously there'd
be no reason to post if these conversations and agreements had taken
place. There's plenty of blame to go around since both parties failed
to force the issue of responsibility prior to the damage occurring

I have no idea, in either situation, whether the damage was avoidable
or not. My point is you're both getting what I like to call an
"unwanted education." Next time you can be damn sure things will be
done differently.

R
In this instance, the tank/toilet is of excellent quality and arrived
in a satisfactory condition. Susequent handling by the contractor
resulted in the tank being damaged. A professional contractor would
eat the replacement and labor costs.

Vince wrote:

On 10 Dec 2005 12:14:34 -0800, "RicodJour"
wrote:


Vince wrote:

The contractor takes on a project for a fixed price to install a
tub/toilet/sink, etc. that are supplied by the buyer. By doing so,
the contractor assumes risk of damaging material. Any contractor that
does not factor in a contingency for possibly causing material damage
is making a mistake.

OK. How much should that contingency be?


10% of total retail cost of materials supplied by buyer.


The replacement cost of the
material multiplied by his estimation of breakage. I don't like
gambling and I'm not in the insurance business. I'd just figure the
replacement cost of the material. Where's the savings now?


With that kind of markup, you would not get the job. I don't like to
gamble either; that is why I seek out a professional to do what I have
decided not to do myself.

There is more than one reason why a buyer decides to furnish material
and hire a "laborer" that is bonded and insured. In my view, by
furnishing major fixtures when having a bathroom remodelled, means
that the labor cost is going to be higher than if the contractor
furnishes all material including the tub/faucet/med chest, etc.

One very likely reason for hiring "labor only" is because the
contractor does not offer what the buyer wants in terms of materials.

IOW, why should a buyer settle on a chrome or polished brass
Delta/Moen/AmStd faucet when he/she prefers to have some other mfgr
item in a color of choice?

Is this a "secret" supplier? Tell him what you want and and where to
get it.


A complete and detailed listing of fixtures was supplied to the
contractor, including the vendor's name and pricing that buyer was
quoted by that vendor. If the contractor wanted to, he could obtain
same fixtures at a contractor's cost and then add $$ while still
coming out less than buyer/retail pricing. In fact, the contractor
did just that: make an offer for cost of the fixtures.


If the contractor doesn't want to be bothered and suggests
that the owner purchase the materials, that's slightly different, but
by no means does it mean that the owner doesn't have a vested interest
in the material or the completion of the project.


OK. How slightly different would it be when the contractor declines
to obtain the fixtures specified by the buyer ?

The homeowner certainly has a vested interest in the material that he
supplies: if it is damged during shipment or does not fit or is wrong
item, then the project halts until an appropriate replacement item
arrives onsite.


When the job is split up very specific conversations have to take place
so everyone is aware of who is responsible for what. Obviously there'd
be no reason to post if these conversations and agreements had taken
place. There's plenty of blame to go around since both parties failed
to force the issue of responsibility prior to the damage occurring

I have no idea, in either situation, whether the damage was avoidable
or not. My point is you're both getting what I like to call an
"unwanted education." Next time you can be damn sure things will be
done differently.

R

In this instance, the tank/toilet is of excellent quality and arrived
in a satisfactory condition. Susequent handling by the contractor
resulted in the tank being damaged. A professional contractor would
eat the replacement and labor costs.
Hi,
Legit contractor has insurance to cover such incidents. Material loss or
injury to worker is covered. First thing to check.
Even small things should be in black and white just to be sure.
Isn't this all common sense?
Tony

Tony Hwang wrote:

Legit contractor has insurance to cover such incidents. Material loss or
injury to worker is covered. First thing to check.

Last thing to utilize. You'd make a claim for a few hundred bucks, at
most, for a toilet? Good way to have your insurance premiums go up,
which would be passed on to all of your customers. The granite would
be a larger claim, perhaps, but we don't know the amount of granite and
what was paid for it. Same idea, though. Don't use the insurance
unless you have to.

Even small things should be in black and white just to be sure.

Absolutely.

Isn't this all common sense?

Rootin', tootin' right, it is.

Tony

Vince wrote:
On 10 Dec 2005 12:14:34 -0800, "RicodJour"
wrote:
Vince wrote:
The contractor takes on a project for a fixed price to install a
tub/toilet/sink, etc. that are supplied by the buyer. By doing so,
the contractor assumes risk of damaging material. Any contractor that
does not factor in a contingency for possibly causing material damage
is making a mistake.

OK. How much should that contingency be?

10% of total retail cost of materials supplied by buyer.

One reason you're not a contractor.

The replacement cost of the
material multiplied by his estimation of breakage. I don't like
gambling and I'm not in the insurance business. I'd just figure the
replacement cost of the material. Where's the savings now?

With that kind of markup, you would not get the job. I don't like to
gamble either; that is why I seek out a professional to do what I have
decided not to do myself.

With this attitude you wouldn't get a bid from me in the first place.
It's a two way street - always.

There is more than one reason why a buyer decides to furnish material
and hire a "laborer" that is bonded and insured. In my view, by
furnishing major fixtures when having a bathroom remodelled, means
that the labor cost is going to be higher than if the contractor
furnishes all material including the tub/faucet/med chest, etc.

I'm not sure I follow your logic. One of the ways to reduce a
contractor to a laborer is to provide direction, materials and assume
the risk. Seems that you've accepted the first two, but not the third.

One very likely reason for hiring "labor only" is because the
contractor does not offer what the buyer wants in terms of materials.

IOW, why should a buyer settle on a chrome or polished brass
Delta/Moen/AmStd faucet when he/she prefers to have some other mfgr
item in a color of choice?

Is this a "secret" supplier? Tell him what you want and and where to
get it.

A complete and detailed listing of fixtures was supplied to the
contractor, including the vendor's name and pricing that buyer was
quoted by that vendor. If the contractor wanted to, he could obtain
same fixtures at a contractor's cost and then add $$ while still
coming out less than buyer/retail pricing. In fact, the contractor
did just that: make an offer for cost of the fixtures.

So low price was the objective. How come this doesn't surprise me?

If the contractor doesn't want to be bothered and suggests
that the owner purchase the materials, that's slightly different, but
by no means does it mean that the owner doesn't have a vested interest
in the material or the completion of the project.

OK. How slightly different would it be when the contractor declines
to obtain the fixtures specified by the buyer ?

The homeowner certainly has a vested interest in the material that he
supplies: if it is damged during shipment or does not fit or is wrong
item, then the project halts until an appropriate replacement item
arrives onsite.

The owner has a vested interest in _everything_ about his project. You
have a vested interest in the contractor remaining in business -
otherwise who will be there to service the warranty and callbacks? The
second sentence illustrates one reason that I like to be in control of
the scheduling. If you were a contractor you'd be the same way, unless
you were new at it or just slow.

When the job is split up very specific conversations have to take place
so everyone is aware of who is responsible for what. Obviously there'd
be no reason to post if these conversations and agreements had taken
place. There's plenty of blame to go around since both parties failed
to force the issue of responsibility prior to the damage occurring

I have no idea, in either situation, whether the damage was avoidable
or not. My point is you're both getting what I like to call an
"unwanted education." Next time you can be damn sure things will be
done differently.

R

In this instance, the tank/toilet is of excellent quality and arrived
in a satisfactory condition. Susequent handling by the contractor
resulted in the tank being damaged. A professional contractor would
eat the replacement and labor costs.

Listen, Vince, you're using your one instance, which still sounds
recent and painful, and extrapolating that into a generality. It
doesn't fly. It's really easy to drive a contractor out of business by
playing hardball - it's done all of the time. The ones that learn
quickly, learn how to protect themselves.

You shouldn't get hung up on this. It's counterproductive. If the guy
is a schmuck, screwed something up from sheer carelessness and you have
had it with the guy, by all means, fry him. Otherwise, adapt. YOU
have learned a valuable lesson here. Work with the guy and resolve it
amicably. Otherwise you've just burnt a bridge, which might come back
to haunt you when you're looking for a contractor. These things get
around.

R