Replies

1. 
   EricPaulson | Oct 07, 2004 12:41am | #1

   bump

   I Love A Hand That Meets My Own,

   With A Hold That Causes Some Sensation.

1. 
   gdavis62 | Oct 07, 2004 01:43am | #2

   I own and have used the "Kit."  If you buy me a copy of the "Guide" I will post my review right here in this column. ;-)

2. 
   davidmeiland | Oct 07, 2004 03:14am | #3

   I have the JLC book and like it... can't comment on the other.

3. 
   JeffBuck | Oct 07, 2004 06:16am | #4

   I've been watching this thread ...

   everyone I talk to that have read both ... all say the same answer ...

   Both!

   as I have neither as of yet ... I to would appreciate a starting point.

   Jeff

1. 
   jonblakemore | Oct 10, 2004 07:50am | #5

   Anybody else? 

   Jon Blakemore

1. 
   DanT | Oct 10, 2004 01:54pm | #6

   Ok, ok.  I'll jump in.  Great to be wanted. I have and use the contractors legal kit.  I have used their contracts for jobs from 5k to 75k with no problems.  If I consistantly did one type of work above say 20k I would probably use an attorney  but my work is varied and the price does too.

   My personal view on contracts is that any good attorney can break any contract.  So what you are really doing with one is getting everyone to commit to a basic set of guidelines.  I believe all the folks (forgive me in advance) who claim to have a "bullet proof" contract that covers all avenues just paid a lot for it and it is really a long contract so that is the feel good term for such an expenditure. 

   I just think having the jargon of using an arbitrator, how the payments will work, who is responsible for what is important and the legal kit allow me to ad or take away from the verbage based on the job needs.  And everyone signs and we all feel commited so it works.  If I get on a$$ hole and they hire a good attorney I am probably screwed, but feel I would be anyway so for $60 its a bargain. DanT

1. 
   SHG | Oct 10, 2004 02:36pm | #7

   Contracts have only 2 purposes:  to clarify the respective duties of the parties and to form the basis of a lawsuit.  And if there's a lawsuit, the contract won't be your problem or savior, your work will.

   So pick a contract that is clear, both to you and the HO.  The worst thing about contracts, especially those prepared by lawyers, and more by dimwitted lawyers, is that they use a bunch of meaningless jargon so that no one has a clue what they really say.  Most of the time, you can say whatever it is you have to say in clear, comprehensible language instead.  But, no contract has ever been able to cover every contingency that arises in construction, and a good contract addresses this as well.

   Personally, I prefer a handshake with someone I can trust.

   SHG

1. 
   blue_eyed_devil | Oct 10, 2004 05:23pm | #8

   I agree Shg.

   I use the Less is more theory. I realize that almost everything now becomes arguable, but in the end, if the work is good, I'm probably going to get paid...at least some of it.

   If you add lots and lots of clarifying clauses, you stil lcould get tied up because of some other arguable clause that you couldn't possibly have thought of. You only need one arguable clause and you are in court. Of course, we can't afford to fight it and therefore we settle. If they are d**ks, life is gonna be miserable no matter what.

   It all depends on how much money were talking....

   blueIf you want to read a fancy personal signature...  go read someone else's post.

2. 
   DanT | Oct 10, 2004 06:25pm | #9

   And I believe what you are saying.  Like I said everyone that ever told me "I have a bullet proof contract that covers all" just made me think they had a 10 pager they paid a lot for.  Look how many famous, rich people or really big companies get sued even with a contract.  Just takes a good lawyer.  DanT