December 06, 2007
Does Tom Have A Case Against The Plumber: Calling All Attorneys (And Those Who Watch "Judge Judy" or "Law and Order")
Here's the question: does Tom have to pay the balance on his plumbing invoice even though the work was not completed.
Here's what happen:
(1) January 1: "Fix It" plumbers came by Tom's house to give him an estimate/bid on a job. The bid was $1200.
(2) January 15: Tom gives a $400 deposit
(3) January 22: Larry, the plumber from the company, comes by and begins work to replace 10 pipes.
(4) January 23: Larry does not show up to work as expected.
(5) February 8: Larry comes by and repairs 3 of the 10 pipes.
(6) At some point Larry quits the company and lies to management saying that he completed the work when he did not. Tom is really, really pissed at this point.
(7) In May, "Fix It" starts sending threatening letters about the balance due. The invoices do not include the $400 deposit which Tom thought was really odd.
(8) May 5th, Tom calls to remind them that they have not completed the work as contracted. The company calls to schedule an appointment to see the work that is left to be completed.
(9) May 8th, the estimator failed to appear as scheduled. Tom is very angry.
(10) May 20, another harrassing invoice threatening to put a leaning on the home. Tom calls again.
(11) May 27, "Fix It" agrees to terminate the original contract.
(12) June 13th, "Fix It" sends another "final invoice/threaten letter" contain a full invoice amount of $1,000. This invoice, however, has a long list of new itemized charges for items that were not a part of the original bid, nor were they listed in any of the previous invoices.
Magically, the new charges of $1,000, combined with the deposit, result in a total cost of $1,400 for the project. The rationale in the new invoice is that "there was cutting of wood around the pipes that were not factored into the original contract."
"Fix It" only completed 25% of the original bid yet have a final invoice with new itemized charges for non-negotiated items.
Tom does not think he should pay the $1,000 because the charges are, for the most part, random, and appears to be a way the company has decided to make up the difference in the work not completed because the contract was terminated.
Does Tom have a case? Should he have to pay the $1,000?
Ok, legal scholars, what do you think?
Personally, I don't think Tom should pay because the project was never completed and the new charges are random and were never negotiated beforehand.
You're right - he should not pay. The work was not done as contracted.
Posted by: Bianca at December 6, 2007 05:19 PMThey have no right to anything and if it goes to court (which it wont) etc. Tom may even be able to get the 400 back as the 400 was not for "partial work" but was a down pmt for "completed work". Also tell tom to try and meet someone face to face as I bet Tom is a good talker in person and I bet the people at fix it arent all bad (but may be). Bring Toms paperwork and try and talk to someone who TOM HAsENT dealt with. Have all toms documentation in front of the person tom ends up dealing with, dates, times, etc, just like you have in this hypothetical blog. Bottom line is I am not a lawyer but have had to deal with certain things like this b4.
Posted by: STork at December 6, 2007 05:41 PMI'm concerned that you might be actually watching Judge Judy and this is not hypothetical. Does Acton know what you are doing with your time if you are watching Judge Judy? What the homeowner should do is call me because i'm good at what I do and know people who are also good and honest at what they do. Contractors piss me off and make me sad to be part of the group sometimes.
Posted by: Kevin B. at December 6, 2007 06:57 PMI'm concerned that this is not hypothetical and you are actually watching Judge Judy. Does Acton know what you are doing with your time? Tell this homeowner to call me because I know what I am doing, know guys who know what they are doing and everyone is honest and all are happy.
People in my trade just piss me off sometimes. Do what you say you are going to do!!!
Posted by: Kevin B. at December 6, 2007 07:00 PMDid Tom document the project from beginning to non-end? Did he make sure to keep a copy of the contract, and does the contract/estimate include detailed explanations of the work to be done? If he has the documentation to prove that the work estimated and contracted for wasn't done, then he doesn't have to pay a thing. The contract wasn't fulfilled. The company is trying hard not to take a hit because their man walked out, but Tom doesn't have to submit to that. The repair company should be spending their time/effort pursuing the workman for his breach of contract.
Based on my experience as a legal secretary, I don't think he has any obligation.
Posted by: dramaturge at December 6, 2007 11:31 PMWhen 'Fix It' terminated the contract that should've been the end of all billing. In fact, they ought to have refunded the $400 deposit.
This story doesn't explain whether or not this is the man's primary residence. If it was think about the huge inconvenience of having a partially completed plumbing job. If it was a rental property then think about the lost income from that property. 'Fix-It' could be liable for a lot more than they realize.
Posted by: Dave Sarafolean at December 7, 2007 09:51 AMMethinks Tom really ought to be talking with the Better Business Bureau and perhaps the local Chamber of Commerce before he talks with a judge. That said, I think he's owed his money back, legally speaking, if it must come to that. And an apology.
Posted by: Bike Bubba at December 7, 2007 01:33 PMTry a non-union shop - Kirkwood Plumbing charges a fair bit, but they do good work and you can depend upon them.
Posted by: barlow at December 7, 2007 02:51 PMGuys, this really is a hypothetical. There's is no plumber situation. Thanks for the insights!!
Posted by: Anthony at December 8, 2007 10:20 AMso the govt. isn't doing its job and living up to its promises and the IRS harasses people to keep paying taxes, so maybe tax payers should hold the govt. more accountable instead of allowing them to just take our money?
Posted by: bobby at December 8, 2007 05:52 PMThis reminds me of an old joke:
A lawyer needed to hire a plumber to fix his kitchen sink. When the plumber was finished, the lawyer asked, "How much?" The plumber said, "$200." The lawyer was apoplectic, "You've only been here an hour, I'm a lawyer and even I don't make $200 an hour!" The plumber looked at him and said, "Yeah, I didn't make that much when I was a lawyer either."
Sorry
Posted by: Wayne at December 8, 2007 10:42 PMWell, I admit that I thought you were Tom, too, Anthony. :^)
And well said, Wayne--my favorite example is when it's physics professors, though, not lawyers.
Posted by: Robert Perry at December 10, 2007 01:11 PM