A client I built a house for and I are settling up our accounts on money owed me. I built the house by the hour and fronted the cost of the materials which he reimbursed me for every few week(he lived 250 miles away).We had a fine builder/client relationship ; no major problems or anything and finished a fine house.At one point the client wanted to put copper 1/2 rnd gutters on the house.Being one of the few things I didnt do on the house I told him id have to search for someone ‘cold’ ( unknown) cause i didnt know anyone who did them in the area. I also consuled that i thought copper 1/2rnd may not carry the volume of water needed , cost and the fact that gutters no matter how carefully installed have a way of getting ripped off the house by ice and snow around here.Anyway found the only copper gutter man in yellow pages(full page color ad) and he came out looked at the job.Had his contractors lisc. , portfolio of past work, seemed to know his stuff. He even suggested aformed seemless gutter thinking it would work better, look nicer and be way cheaper. “No ” says the client “I want the copper”. Okay..gutter man gives me a price and a bid form and asks for a $1000 deposit. Client ask if i can write the check cuz he wont be down for a week or two. Write the check give it to gutter man or says hell be back in week or so after he gets copper.Bad weather and put offs for a few weeks and then no answers to phone messages.That was the last we ever saw of the guy.A bit of investigation by me found out that he also stiffed the local lumber yard for $6000 and a couple other clients.No help from sheriff and its clear this guy is long gone and beyond any point of spending more time and $ tracking him down or useless lawsuits.Now the client wants me to pick up that whole $1000 cuz he didnt get his gutter.I figure I was acting as his agent and wasnt making any $ off any part of it. What do you think would be a fair resolution of a screwed up situation? Thanks for your opinions.sorry text was so long.
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
Listeners write in about haunted pipes and building-science tomes, and they ask questions about roof venting and roof leaks.
Featured Video
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
the customer should cover you he asked you to write the check it was his decision i would just put it on the bill
Your post doesn't say whether or not you added profit and overhead to his bill, but if you didn't, he got the house way cheap and he pays the $1000. I mean... what's it going to come out of, your grocery money or the shirt off your kid's back? If you did charge profit and overhead, there should be a few bucks coming in for risk taken by you, and then I think you either split the $1000 or you pay it.
"I figure I was acting as his agent and wasnt making any $ off any part of it. "
He owes.
blue
I agree that he owes but I think that you need to have a calm but honest discussion with him. Try asking him what he thinks is fair and why he thinks that. Let him talk while you listen. After all, if he is going to lose a $1000 he should be pissed. Some of that will spill onto you but if the guy is a stand up guy he will do what is right after letting off a little steam. If it is not too late be patient but firm. Good luck.
Maybe I'm wrong, but "ethics" is an obsession of mine.
As I see it, you acted as his "agent". Unbeknownst to you, you got stiffed. As his agent it was your responsibility to make sure you were hiring someone who you did not check out enough before hiring him. The client "trusted" you but you let him down. It's your $1000 to eat.
Bad enough if you hired him for your own job if you were acting as a GC and wee to add your markup on it, but worse yet to assume that you could take a cavalier attitude when committing someone else's money.
So much for the "ethics" side. As for the "fair" side, he could offer to split it with you if he truly feels bad about it, but it was you call.
Bottom line is that I'd eat it PLUS apologize to him for my bad judgement in not checking out the gutter guy's reputation better and the inconvenience to him. Then use that $1000 loss as PR and marketing.
you're wrong.
the customer found the guy ... the customer picked the guy.
the customer talked to the guy ... said No, I want the more expensive gutters ...
it's the customers loss all the way.
Jeff
You're half right Jeff.
The contractor found the sub and invited him to the site.
The HO talked to him and approved the material.
Whenever you are asked if you can do a job, tell'em "Certainly, I can!" Then get busy and find out how to do it. T. Roosevelt
Sorry, I thought the contractor picked the gutter guy from the yellow pages and talked to the client over the phone, and over the phone is when the client said he wanted the copper gutters, but never actualy met the gutter guy.
My point was that the client put his trust in the contractor's "judgement."
I'm not chastising the contractor. That could have happened to any of us. But in the contractor's position, just like if I borrow a friends tool, I take better care of it than if it was mine, becasue it is "not" mine. That goes for money as well. If not, then the contractor could have called Joe Blow, and if Joe Blow took off with the money, it was not out of the contractor's pocket, so if he expected to be reimbursed for that $1000, why should he care if the guy showed up or not? Another way to look at it, is that the contractor "recommeneded" that gutter guy. The recommendaton was not specifically stated , but "implied" by obtaining and giving the client all of that info from the guy.
I may be way out of order, but that's how I feel.
If I screwed up like that, I would still eat it since it was my "bad judgement" and my "call." I always pay for my calls, good or bad.
I borrow my friends car and with his permission, get into a car accident and my friend had $100o deductible. Is it my friends "call" to pay that $1000 deductible? After all, he offered his car for me to use. While using his car I'm acting as "his" agent, since it's "his" car and "his" insurance.
Good to have you posting, Sonny.
As I see it, the deal either includes some payment to the GC for risk, or it doesn't. If the owner pays the GC to assume risk, then the GC pays the $1000. It sounds like there was no such payment, unless it was part of the wages/hourly paid to the GC.
David, there is always a risk when hiring subs and/or shelling out money. In this case, the contractor "assumed" this risk, but with no compensation for him to assume the risk. So it was the contractors risk, not the client. The fact that there was no "reward" for assuming the risk was again, the contractor's mistake.
I've done what he did many times for my own customers since many are snow birds. Of course, it was when dealing with an existing sub, or maybe making a product purchase for him. If a product purchase, say a shelf unit or telephone, and ended up being stolen from my truck, I eat it's cost and just bought another one.
Maybe this is a tough call for many people, but in my eyes there is rarely a gray area when ethics are involved. I try to eliminate the temptation "slide" blame onto others using that reliable old tactic called: ratinalization. To me this is still a black and white issue and as much as I hate it, it's still $1000 out of my pocket.
Sonny,
If you were painting my house and I asked you to give the roofer one of your checks because I wasn't available, would you eat the money if the roofer skipped?
Assume that you, as a painter, advised me against that roofing material because of it's applicability but I decided to go with it anyway.
Assume further that I had had you look in the yellow pages to get a roofer to call me so I could talk to him.
SamT
Edited 10/28/2004 1:40 pm ET by SamT
Sam, the answer is "No, I would expect to be repaid by you.
Sonny,
Thanks for the quick reply.
I'm trying to focus in on the issue. I was trying to find the outer limit of your position. Want to examine it in comparison to myself in order to refine myself.
You said "there is always a risk when hiring subs and/or shelling out money. In this case, the contractor "assumed" this risk, but with no compensation for him to assume the risk. So it was the contractors risk, not the client. The fact that there was no "reward" for assuming the risk was again, the contractor's mistake. "
And I agree. We also agree that a sub has no risk doing a favor for the HO with another sub. To put it very simply.
I think that TreeTalk was a fool but then again, we all act foolish once in a while, and I try to learn from others mistakes so I don't have to pay for my education myself.
TreeTalk put himself in the ambiguous position of being a contractor (I won't say GC) who billed only for hourly labor. We don't know, but he suggests that other subs were paid directly by the HO. It is apparent that he expected this sub to be paid by the HO.
He has made an effort to distance himself from GC status. He did warn the HO that he was unable to judge the gutter trash. He did expect to be reimbursed, not compensated, by the HO for the deposit.
Am I on track so far?
I don't expect to put myself in this situation, but it's good excersise.
SamT
He did the guy a favor.
Another case of "No good deed goes unpunished".
What I'd do is, wait about five years,
then torch the place.Our quarrel with the world is an echo of the endless quarrel within us. - Eric Hoffer
Sam, I agree with what you said. The contractor "assumed" the role of a GC when he offered to find a gutter guy, talk price, and unfortunately give him a grand. That's why I said he should eat the $1000, regardless of how heard it will be to do so. On the flip side, and as a I stated earlier, the owner should offer to at least split that $1000.
Son Tom is now is a different yet similar situation. When Pete died, he had about 20 jobs and of them, 13 were in various stages. Tom got power of attorney of Pete's affairs, personal and business. Our attorney told him that as soon as he starts talking to Pete's customers, and even makes only one decision, even a small one, regarding any of Pete's customers jobs, the law will have "assumed" Tom's liability to continue to perfoum under Pete's original contract and verbiage in it. Therefore, if Tom wants to change a contract (Pete underestimated three of the jobs), Tom would have to only state that their original contract with Pete is null and void, but he would write a new and separate contract with them under his license, change the name on the permit, etc., and complete the work as though it was a completely new job for Tom, just as though they fired Pete due to a dispute and hired a new and separate contractor to finish the work.
So fairness is one thing, ethics is another, and legal bindings is yet another. All of the audience here would be smart to learn this this situation, and Tom's with Pete's. One statement in front of witnesses could put us under.
Personally, I would be upset if the owner "didn't" offer to at least split that grand with me. His decision would tell me what "his" ethics and sense of fair play was, and in fact, determine the rest of my working relationship with him.
>>The contractor "assumed" the role of a GC when he offered to find a gutter guy, talk price
>>even makes only one decision, even a small one, regarding any of Pete's customers jobs, the law will have "assumed" Tom's liability to continue to perform under Pete's original contract
Ah ha!
Ok, assume for the sake of argument the the HO had paid the check. Would the assumptive GC be liable? IYO.
Or would this come under the 9/10ths rule? Again, in your opinion.
Alternatively, "So fairness is one thing, ethics is another, and legal bindings is yet another. " It reads as if you have been stating the legal position, but you have avered that it is the ethical position.
Do you see a difference? If so, can you say something about it?
SamT
>Ok, assume for the sake of argument the the HO had paid the check. Would the assumptive GC be liable? IYO.<
Sure, now you have to make it difficult.
First, I just threw the legal thing in just as a comparable comment. As stated in the title of this thread, it "is" an ethical situation, and yes, I do know the difference.
I'd have to think further in my own mind if the HO wrote the check. There are two views on that:
1. The HO should have checked out the gutter guy before writing out the check.
2. On the other hand, the HO could have written out the check because he relied on the contractor's judgment of the man, and the situation.
The disagreement as to which product to use is a moot issue since either way, monies would have exchanged.
As far as practicing 'due diligence' in regards to verifying the gutters mans professional standing is moot point. His lisc. was current ; examples of his work were seen and from my own years of personal expierence he " talked the talk and walked the walk". But be that as it may..he might of been the greatest gutter man who ever lived till the morning he woke up and said "screw this , that bitch ; this addiction, my mental state says abandon ship. fly the coop and pack up the truckat night.The lumber co. that got stiffed 6K did a credit search, gave him an account and counted him as a good customer until he decided to grab n' run.
Tree,
Welcome back, this is a good thread you started.
Have you been reading what Sonny and I are chewing?
Can you fill in the blanks, so to speak?
Your situtation sux, man. I hope I never get stuck there.
SamT
Sonny,
>>I just threw the legal thing in just as a comparable comment
Trying to confuse me, hunh?
Well, it worked.
Quit that!
Yeah, I thought that the source of the check would be a wrench. If we turn the entire situation on its head it's easy to see The Way.
If I contract with you, marking up all subs and material, then, when I ask you to pay a sub or supplier for me all I am really doing is accepting a payment from you against our contract. Good check, bad check. I'm the guy with the contract.
There is no legal, moral, or ethical doubt possible.
Wait a minute, I've got to go to the dictionary...
All def's of ethics except this one relate to morals. This one feels best for our use;Eth"ics (?), n. [Cf. F. éthique. See Ethic.] The science of human duty; the body of rules of duty drawn from this science;
Du"ty (?), n.; pl. Duties (#). [From Due.] 1. That which is due;
Excepting where they relate to ethics and duty, this gives the best sense of the meaning of;Mor"al (?), a. Conformed to accepted rules of right; acting in conformity with such rules; virtuous; just; as, a moral man.
Maybe we should agree to leave out moral considerations, as they seem subjective or political.
Ok I'm back from my private musings.
It seems to me that legal responsibilities and ethical duties are both ####-for-tat situations. No money, no worky.
If TreeTalk has a duty/responsiblity to perform, under his contract, the task of guttering the HOs home, then he has the duty to complete the job. By, for instance finding a sub to complete the work. Further, he has a responsibility to his business to mark up the subs price and charge the HO accordingly. At this time the HO would owe Tree the totality of the cost of the new sub.
To quantify this: The sub proposes a price of $4000 including material. Tree marks up 35%. The total cost to the HO is $5400. The HO owes Tree $5400, and Tree owes the sub $4000. Tree has already wasted $1000 on a bad sub.
Of course the HO could hold Tree to the original bid plus markup.
As I see it, without that markup (what Tree is Due from the HO), Tree has no ethical duty to the HO and should be reimbursed for the $1K.
Yer tern,
SamT
Sam, all of my life I have equated “ethical†standards as “moral “ standards. One’s ethics are built upon a foundation of morals. So I cannot separate the two.
In part of the eulogy I gave about Pete at his services, was:
“But Pete was more than understanding, humorous, and kind. All four of our children were raised under the philosophy that money or selfishness was never allowed to take priority over a high sense of ethics, honesty and kindness. For with out them, material gain has no value. While striving to obtain business success and in his daily personal life, he never abandoned that philosophy because it was ingrained in his character. And as they were growing up, every single one of our children easily and wholeheartedly embraced that same philosophy. Today, those of you here are validation that the commitment to that way of living was no better represented than in the form of one Peter X. Lykos.
As our kids were growing up, Barb always emphasized good grades in school, while I always emphasized the importance of becoming just good people, and as Barb did too. As with Tom, Kristi, and Nicole, Pete always strove to make Barb and I proud of him as a man and a human being. Today it must be said that as his father, I could only hope to ever be even half the man that my Petey was, for he was not only the consummate student of goodness in life, but a teacher of it as well.â€
So perhaps Sam, you can better understand from where I am coming from. There is no dollar amount that exists that can tempt me to compromise my ethical standards, and I think I can say the same about my kids. If there is ever any question of which way to go, I’d opt for me accepting responsibility for an action or situation, even if I was only 10% responsibile for it. That way, regardless of any debate about the issue at hand, I would feel that I made a decision, fair to me or not, correct for me or not, still aligned with my philosophy of life. In other words, I have removed any and all doubt about my own ethical standards that remain my/our foundation. The amount of money is immaterial - to me. What I think about myself is of my prime concern.
>>If there is ever any question of which way to go, I’d opt for me accepting responsibility for an action or situation, even if I was only 10% responsibile for it. That way, regardless of any debate about the issue at hand, I would feel that I made a decision, fair to me or not, correct for me or not, still aligned with my philosophy of life.
Sonny, I think that is a wonderfully moral position. I too tend to follw that method, simply because it is the easiest way for me to assure that I will still like myself.
Never the less, I do love discussing ethical issues with inteligent partners who also have a sense of moral conduct.
I hope you believe that I was not trying to effect your own morality.
SamT
Edited 10/28/2004 10:18 pm ET by SamT
Sam, I never had any thoughts about you other than those of being a good man. Creating and maintaining one's ethical standards can be confusing, and they are continually being tested in ambiguous ways.
One day and while still in his 30’s, Pete got betrayed by a good friend. I don’t remember the issue right now, but when Pete told me about it, I asked him why he let the guy get away with what he did. Pete replied with: “Dad. You’re the one who taught us to always put ourselves in the other person’s shoes to try to understand why they did what they did.†All I could say to him was that he was right, but I also didn’t teach him to be a fool
Occasionally he got screwed by a customer and never got bitter about it, just chalking it up to trusting people too much or making a mistake by letting them chisel him down on price. More importantly, he never let these members of the public bring him down to their level. He was getting better though and being more careful in who he worked for and fine tuning his contracts. I think I can safely say that like me, he’d rather be that guy who “bought†the Brooklyn Bridge that the guy who “sold†it.
The only legacy we leave to our family members, friends, and the world, is what our name represents. That alone must be the driving factor of each of us and what determines each decision we make. And to continuously enjoy the “moment†regardless of who we are with, for during the very next moment, we could be dead.
In fact, why else are each of us on this forum, if not to continually improve not only our businesses - how we can better serve our customers, but to also serve ourselves well. It's a bear to be as we know we ought to be when periodically surrounded by vile people and "testing" situations. However, we have no other option than to represent the best examples of goodness to our families & those with whom we come in contact. So we learn to not make quick decisions or statements without first giving it some thought.
Like you, I like who I am.
Sonny,
Let us hope that TreeTalk can find something of use in this thread.
We have wandered all over his situation, so it is possible.
G'nite.
SamT
Sam T,
I hope he's not out the K buck!
Dez
Sam, I just reread your post again and specifically where you stated:
"I too tend to follow that method, simply because it is the easiest way for me to assure that I will still like myself."
".......the easiest way........"
That's It!
It IS the easiest way to live one's life. It's as though that is the "natural" way, so "naturally" it's the "easiest" way. Any other way to live is not natural, and is the reason rationalizations are so often employed to justify what someone knows is really a moral wrong.
I've always maintained that life is really simple, but people insist upon complicating the heck out of it. Gotta fight to keep it simple.
"The easiest way!" I have to remember that every time a questionable situation comes up.
Thank you for that.
Funny, about 20 years ago I had coffee with a retired GC. I asked him why he thought there were so many incompetent and just plain lousy contractors compared to the good guys. He said that’s because the public has run most of the good guys out of business. He was right then and right now!
Tom’s been going nuts trying to run his business and Pete’s until Pete’s jobs are done. He just got off the phone with Barb - 11PM and still at his office.
He told Barb that Mrs. So and So called him tonight so Barb should add another $5K to her next pay out. It’s about a $700K project, and while they pay promptly and without any hassle, she calls and drives everyone in his office nuts, and continually bitches about this and that - yet also continues to add more things to the project, and then complains about delays caused by the additions and/or changes. Barb said the last time she called and was giving Barb a hard time, Tom heard Barb tallking to her and raised is hand with all 5 fingers spread apart - meaning another $5K gets added to her job again.
Ethical? Probably not, but both Tom and Barb (she runs his office) are getting fed up with the public. Although 90% of his customers are terrific people, every tenth one becomes a monster, and those monsters screw up your entire day. So now, one way or another they pay for their attitude.
That's another reason why Tom's been buying rental properties, so he can retire at 50.
Night.
To all,
It looks to me like the homeowner essentially asked to borrow $1,000 from treetalk, furthermore with intent of spending it against treetalks advise.
Homeowner owes $1000
lesson to learn?---don't lend money to your customers.
ethical considerations? what I have noticed when faced with an ethical dilema----the ethical thing always seems to be the thing that will cause me the most time,effort ,money,inconvenience or personal harm. The right thing to do is often the thing your instinct wants to avoid---and the wrong thing is often the easy painless way out.
Be a masochist
Stephen Hazlett
exactly. there's nothing more complicated about this situation than TT fronting payment for the HO at the HOs request. it creates neither a legal nor ethical obligation on the part of TT under any logical theory, and that doesn't change no matter how many 5000 word posts Sonny writes or how many stories about his son Tom he throws in.
Contractors have plenty of ethical and legal obligations, and they must take it like a man when they are in the wrong. but, no reason to make them the buttboy for every situation. there are times when even contractors are in the right.
SHG
first Sonny... let me again offer our condolences to you and Barb... so sorry..
and in the tradition of enlightening others with our own poor experiences:
tt should get the money from the HO / GC...
and if he doesn't , he should have his bookeeper make another entry in "Continuing Education" account of being a contractor...
the moral is the same olde one..
it's "your" house... we use " your " money...
contractors / tradesmen should not let themselves finance jobs unless they are being compensated and protected
Mike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Edited 10/30/2004 9:53 am ET by Mike Smith
I have to go back and read this again ....
I just confused myself ... again.
I still ain't paying that $1K though!
Jeff
Sonny- Great points.
What would you do if you were the owner? I am betting that you would pay the 1k or at least 95%. I am sure that Tree would be happy with $950 and gladly pay the 50 out of his own pocket.
Based upon what Treetalk recently posted, if I were the owner I'd reimburse him for the $1000.
Shoot! I just realized that based upon my posts, it doesn't matter if I were Treetalk or the HO, it's still a grand out of my pocket either way. Think I'll stay away from both of them. (-:
Sounds to me as if Treetalk is in position of a lead carp working for the HO who is acting as the GC. He mentioned even using his own money for materials getting reimbursed every couple weeks. (GC gets to use TT's money for free)
TT recommended against the product that the GC insisted on having. TT said he didn't know anyone in area and just go in 'cold ' looking for someone in the local. Found the one and only. GC AKA HO after discussing with TT or the GB says go for it! (Against recommendations) Oh, and by the way, since I won't be around for a couple weeks, can you front me the money to get the guy scheduled?
HO/GC pays!
Example of my reasoning:
Your a company owner and your being sued and don't yet have a regular lawyer you use. You go to your secretary and ask her to find you a lawyer. She does. Lawyer loses case. Is she on the hook for the fees?
Maybe I missed something...but I don't think it should be TT's loss. My two cents.
Dez
Sonny, I had to go back and reread the original post...it's veryrare that I disagree with you and now i'm still not sure.
Here's the quote that confuses me "Okay..gutter man gives me a price and a bid form and asks for a $1000 deposit. Client ask if i can write the check cuz he wont be down for a week or two.''
I see this as a cost of doing business....kinda like"spillage''.
The relationship between the owner and the builder sounds murky too. It sounds like the owner is actually gcing this thing and only paying subs....
That spillage should come out of the general contractors "profit". Whos getting that profit?
blueIf you want to read a fancy personal signature... go read someone else's post.
There was no profit or overhead involved.I paid the bill and presented the same bbill to client to who paid stated amount ; as was the same for any other subcontracts.
I dont agree with if by finding the gutter bum I somehow reccomended him.The client asked for a specific type of craftsman to do a particuliar job.Being in a rural poor area it is a given that certain higher end and materials will not be found in the local 'realm'.This was the case for many of the materials used in the house..$800 shower heads ; terrazzo shower bases.I told the client I didnt know any copper gutter men but would see what I could find.He was the the only one in a 75 mile radius.His presentation (lisc, portfolio,rap) indicated he could do the job. I offered these facts to the client but I certainily couldnt guarrentee his personal ethics whether he was a common thief or axe murderer.Who could of.?I dont think being GC immediately conveys legal responsibility for all descions made in building the house.We all have done things for clients that we may not of agreed on.(ie in this house T&G maple floors were put in a master bath with a big sloppy freestanding tub and shower curtained stall...) I give my professional opinion (usually more than once "give thenm a chance to come around") and go on with it unless its a real safety issue or the client is just a stupid idiot. It was the same on the gutter..stated my unfamiliarity with the product; its application in this case and knowledge of competent installers.
From the description in the original post, it sounds as if finding the gutter guy, then fronting the check, was nothing more than an accomodation. This wasn't even an agency, as the owner was told up front that you had no recommendation, etc. You don't become a guarantor of other, unknown contractors (not sub, since he wasn't your sub) just because you agree to do the homeowner a favor. And the gutters were not integral to your work, and your work was not contingent on having the gutters installed.
As a matter of maintaing a good relationship on a big job, I might split the loss. But I would make clear that you were doing the HO a favor, and this isn't the way to repay a favor. Would he have been happier with you if you have just said that you didn't have anyone and if he wanted copper gutters, he would have to handle it himself?
SHG
Sounds like your owner guy from afar is the GC, and that you were hired as his lead carpenter, crew chief, and "local advisor on matters of supply and subcontracting."
In this case you offered what turned out to be bad advice, and your best hope should be a split of the loss.
If you had been making full OH&P on all those materials ($800 shower heads, etc.) and all those other subcontractor costs, and I was sitting in arbitration on this gutter guy matter, I would argue that you should eat the $1000.
Good luck!
I have reread your post three times and need to ask, because it is not clear in what you wrote: did the owner meet this gutter guy, or was all contact with you alone?
And a couple more questions: did the owner write all checks to all subs directly, with no outlay at all by you? And, did you make OH&P on sub costs? Did you make OH&P on materials?
As regards other subs, was it ever the owner's job to qualify and select anyone? Or were all decisions as to which sub to use yours?
If the owner had written that check, but had never met or spoken with the gutter guy, and now would be wanting the money back from you, how would you address it?
And lastly, do you typically give advance "deposit" payouts to subs with whom you have never worked before, nor have done due diligence in qualifying?
"And lastly, do you typically give advance "deposit" payouts to subs with whom you have never worked before, nor have done due diligence in qualifying?"
would you kindly define due diligence and what he should have done to check this guy out?
Looking to learn what this means_____________________________
bobl Volo, non valeo
Get and review insurance certificates, speak to last and current customers, visit a site to inspect last copper gutter job done, negotiate "deposit" payment as a check directly to metal supply house, negotiate for no payment up front, but instead pay only for materials upon delivery, speak to gutter guy's material suppliers as to creditworthiness, etc.
Having done any of this would have likely avoided the hassle.
Better yet, stand on principle (gutters won't hold up to our winters) and insist that owner deal with gutter guy directly.
thanks_____________________________
bobl Volo, non valeo
I would never hire a contractor I didn't know without comfirming his license status first:
West Virginia Division of Labor - Contractor Search
This search allows you to check if a contractor is licensed with the West Virginia Division of Labor's Contractor License Section. If you have any specific questions about a contractor or need Information regarding complaints against a contractor please call 1-304-558-7890.
http://www.labor.state.wv.us/search/default.asp
Someone operating like your gutterbum surely has a complaint filed against him. Here, what's his license #? I'll look it up for you.
the way it sounds to me is,,,, the h/o, asked you to cover the tab as his own discretion. is this similar to borrowed money winning the powerball? who is entitled to the lottery winnings, the finacier, or the person holding the ticket? kinda goes both ways in my opinion. i think he outa pay the bill and if he's miffed then he might understand the risk's associated with contracting, and maybe even appreciate you for being an honest fair dealing businessman for the duration of the project so far. best of luck, i hope you get your money back, and i sincerely hope you find a time for a face to face conversation in reviewing th transaction. in situations like these i find that calm controlled conversation, albeit staying the course will yeild positive results. i had a similar situation involving windows. alloted a dollar amount for windows in a log home to avoid being plagued with questions. the windows arrived that the h/o ordered from my supplier on my account. picked them out himself and after they were installed did not want to pay for them because they were not tinted like he "thought" they were going to be. went back to the supplier to find out who dropped the ball and found his signature on the order placed. low "e" glass, double hung,,, etc. , but no mention of tinting on the order. i eventually got paid but it was a result of good craftsmanship/buisness dealings on the rest of the job,,, in my opinion anyway. hope it works out.
j. jordan
http://www.jjordanbuilders.com
My $.02 worth is that the HO made the decision to hire the guy, not TT, and as soon as he said "Write the check" , he assumed all responsibility for that $1000...just as he would the rest of the costs had the guy actually stayed and finished the job.
Nothing unethical about it. TT was operating as the HOs agent and did so specifically at his direction. HO eats the grand.
i'm in total agreement. i also know that if it were me in that situation, i'd be very angry at myself for being snookered out of a grand while the h/o got off scott free. i'd feel less angry at myself if the least thing i did was to try and get my money back. if the h/o decided not to pay, i'd know i would have great difficulty in pursuing anymore work from him till accounts were settled- fairly!