Reply to How would you interpret this clause re: contractor responsibility for damage?

Forum Index » Home Improvement, Design, and Decorating

Reply to "How would you interpret this clause re: contractor responsibility for damage? "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]He’s not paying for the mink coat you said that water damage because the window leaked. 
[/quote]
He should.
[quote=Anonymous]
He’s not paying to rebuild the front wall of your house because the window leaked.

[/quote]
If the leaking caused the framing to rot, he should
[quote=Anonymous]
He’s not putting you up at the Sagamore Pendry for 10 nights because the windows are drafty.

[/quote]
He should
[quote=Anonymous]
He’s not paying to rebuild the front wall of your house because upon opening it he discovered it’s nothing but Legos and popsicle sticks.

[/quote]

This one is on the homeowner.
[quote=Anonymous]

None of his language in the fine print would get him out of liability in the event of a defect in workmanship, there’s no signing that away, as you collect your estimates you will find very similar wording if not exactly that wording on the others; if you don’t see it then the contractors don’t care, have no business skills or don’t have a pot to p in so it doesn’t matter anyway.

[/quote]

This is a really strange thing to say. If you install a window, and it leaks, that's a defect in workmanship. There is no "acceptable" level of leaking, other than none. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics