This is what may happen depending on the laws and or contract. o_O

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-LqLU7CxeA

TDD

In article ,
The Daring Dufas wrote:

This is what may happen depending on the laws and or contract. o_O

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-LqLU7CxeA

TDD

There was a wealthy fellow here that would hire a half-dozen illegal
aliens to work on his estate. He'd string them along for a couple of
weeks without paying them, then call INS and have them deported. He
would then hire another group to continue the work. Eventually word got
out about his tactics, and he was killed.

The Daring Dufas wrote:
This is what may happen depending on the laws and or contract. o_O

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-LqLU7CxeA


Outstanding, but I think it work's differently in the U.S. - here, the
contractor gets a lien on the property.

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

The Daring Dufas wrote:
This is what may happen depending on the laws and or contract. o_O

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-LqLU7CxeA


Outstanding, but I think it work's differently in the U.S. - here, the
contractor gets a lien on the property.

This was in Britain, I believe. It may be that there (as in Holland) the
local government or its financing agent in one form or another
builds/built low-income housing that then is rented/leased long-term to
the occupants. They may or may not be empowered to build/renovate their
housing. In addition, there likely are requirements similar to zoning
and/or HOA rules to be met. If these occupants hired a contractor to do
XYZ, the contractor may have been stupid enough not to check all the
flipping rules. The occupants may have regretted their modifications
(such as if in hindsight they didn't satisfy the rules and would have
needed to be removed) and thought, let's not pay this, because then we
might have to pay for removal also. Maybe Macchiavellian, but alas ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 1/8/2012 11:13 AM, Han wrote:
wrote in
m:

The Daring Dufas wrote:
This is what may happen depending on the laws and or contract. o_O

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-LqLU7CxeA


Outstanding, but I think it work's differently in the U.S. - here, the
contractor gets a lien on the property.

This was in Britain, I believe. It may be that there (as in Holland) the
local government or its financing agent in one form or another
builds/built low-income housing that then is rented/leased long-term to
the occupants. They may or may not be empowered to build/renovate their
housing. In addition, there likely are requirements similar to zoning
and/or HOA rules to be met. If these occupants hired a contractor to do
XYZ, the contractor may have been stupid enough not to check all the
flipping rules. The occupants may have regretted their modifications
(such as if in hindsight they didn't satisfy the rules and would have
needed to be removed) and thought, let's not pay this, because then we
might have to pay for removal also. Maybe Macchiavellian, but alas ...


Here in Alabamastan they can't demolish without a court order or an
ironclad contract signed by the owner that allows demolition for
nonpayment. I always tell contractors to get a contract signed by the
owner of the property. They can always get a lien for nonpayment and
could actually wind up owning the property or seeing it seized by the
court and auctioned off for the money owed.

TDD

On Jan 8, 6:06*am, The Daring Dufas
wrote:
This is what may happen depending on the laws and or contract. o_O

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-LqLU7CxeA

TDD

Yes it was here in the UK. It was on national TV a couple of years
back I remember.

The legal position is that the goods remain the property of the seller
until payment is made. That includes duff cheques etc.

Funny business, most buiIders demand stage payments as the work
proceeds. Some even try for money up front.

If the goods were inside the house, they would need to get a court
order and bailffs and they could seize other goods in lieu of payment.