Shoddy Work

[Taxing Matters]

That is ambiguous. Are you saying that in Texas a contractor can be fired for any reason the homeowners deems legit?

No. As I said before, and as the quote I provided states, the homeowner's rights depend on a breach of the contract. In contract law the term failure to perform means that a party has not done what the contract required him to do, and thus is a breach of the contract. So it is not ambiguous. The homeowner could not simply terminate the contract for just any reason. But when the contractor has breached the contract that would be one potential remedy for the homeowner. And the OP certainly is not dumping the contractor for some reason unrelated to performance of the contract. According to the OP the contractor has done a shoddy job of the work and after a month has failed to come back and remedy it despite a promise do so. If accurate that would be a material breach of the contract. So the homeowner's right to sue for breach of contract flows from that.

During my trial I watched both attorneys argue case law. Either one could convince me that they were right. However the judge saw that one argument was weak. I doubt anyone here, including yourself, will argue the other side of what you are saying.

Two attorneys can argue over the case law if the case law is somehow not clear, there are conflicting cases, etc. Here, though, the problem is that no statute or case law that I can find in Texas says that there is a right to cure in this circumstance, and the two Texas lawyer articles I mentioned earlier back that up. Again, you wouldn't need to put a right to cure in contracts in Texas if the law already provided for it. Certainly the contractor's attorney could try to make the argument for it anyway, but given the lack of any law in Texas supporting it, that would appear to be a losing effort, though the lawyer would get paid for it whether he won or lost the point.

And in any event, the homeowner has already given the contractor a chance to come back and make it right — and the contractor failed to show up. And it's been now over a month since the contractor was last there. So even if there was a right to cure it seems to me that the homeowner has provided that opportunity. It doesn't seem as though this contractor is at all interested in trying to fix the problem and provide good service to his customer. What more would you think the homeowner has to do? Get down on his/her knees and plead for the contractor to fix it? As a contractor yourself I'm not surprised that you are in the contractor's corner on this one and expect the homeowner to bend over backwards to give the shoddy contractor all kinds of chances to fix it, but the law in Texas does not demand the homeowner do that.

[Harold99]

No. As I said before, and as the quote I provided states, the homeowner's rights depend on a breach of the contract. In contract law the term failure to perform means that a party has not done what the contract required him to do, and thus is a breach of the contract. So it is not ambiguous. The homeowner could not simply terminate the contract for just any reason. But when the contractor has breached the contract that would be one potential remedy for the homeowner. And the OP certainly is not dumping the contractor for some reason unrelated to performance of the contract. According to the OP the contractor has done a shoddy job of the work and after a month has failed to come back and remedy it despite a promise do so. If accurate that would be a material breach of the contract. So the homeowner's right to sue for breach of contract flows from that.

I meant firing a contractor and not paying him solely on the way the finish product looks. Not firing him for not clipping his fingernails. A contract does not show how the deck should look, so how is it breach of contract?

Sure the deck looks like shit, but did the contract state otherwise? So it isn't breach of contract. It is not built to industry standards. Not a breach of contract.

Two attorneys can argue over the case law if the case law is somehow not clear, there are conflicting cases, etc. Here, though, the problem is that no statute or case law that I can find in Texas says that there is a right to cure in this circumstance, and the two Texas lawyer articles I mentioned earlier back that up. Again, you wouldn't need to put a right to cure in contracts in Texas if the law already provided for it. Certainly the contractor's attorney could try to make the argument for it anyway, but given the lack of any law in Texas supporting it, that would appear to be a losing effort, though the lawyer would get paid for it whether he won or lost the point.

My point of two attorneys is that an attorney can tell a layperson about any law he wants to use as caselaw in front of a judge. But the truth is that all attorneys in that situation are only right 50% of the time. And when an attorney such as yourself is not going against another attorney in front of a judge he will sound right 100% of the time when he could be miserably wrong.

And in any event, the homeowner has already given the contractor a chance to come back and make it right — and the contractor failed to show up. And it's been now over a month since the contractor was last there. So even if there was a right to cure it seems to me that the homeowner has provided that opportunity. It doesn't seem as though this contractor is at all interested in trying to fix the problem and provide good service to his customer. What more would you think the homeowner has to do? Get down on his/her knees and plead for the contractor to fix it? As a contractor yourself I'm not surprised that you are in the contractor's corner on this one and expect the homeowner to bend over backwards to give the shoddy contractor all kinds of chances to fix it, but the law in Texas does not demand the homeowner do that.

You don't have sufficient information that the contractor has abandoned the job. Why aren't' you making the common, flimsy excuse that "we need more information?"

Also, I am not defending this POS contractor for taking a job that's above his pay-grade. I am saying that if he hired a lawyer to defend himself, that you would not defeat him in court the way you say you would. Hint: Now is when you say "I never said that."

You like to self-elevate yourself above me and talk down to me because I am a lowly contractor and you are an esteemed lawyer. However I see myself as a better contractor than you are a lawyer. I am qualified to critique lawyers because I have seen enough bad ones. I would say that when you strip away the fancy terms lawyers use to bamboozle the public, not many of them are very good at performing against top tier lawyers. Yet, I'd go against most top tier finish carpenters any day. Oh, and if you notice, I will respond to all of your posts when you often choose not to answer some of my questions that will nail you against the wall. Like our last exchange.

[Taxing Matters]

Sure the deck looks like shit, but did the contract state otherwise? So it isn't breach of contract. It is not built to industry standards. Not a breach of contract.

You don't know whether the contract was breached and neither do I since neither of us have read it. If the contractor did not do the job as specified in the agreement then he breached it. The OP will have to prove the breach should he sue. I've made no opinion here of whether he could win. I've just addressed your claim that that contractor must be given the right to cure. Under Texas law that does not appear to be the case unless the contract itself provided a right to cure.

You don't have sufficient information that the contractor has abandoned the job. Why aren't' you making the common, flimsy excuse that "we need more information?"

What we know is that the contractor last showed up over a month ago and agreed to come correct the problems and finish the job the other day and failed to show up. So that tells me that even if there had been a right to cure the contractor was given that opportunity and didn't come through. If this contractor was any good he'd be bending over backwards trying to make this right. But he's certainly not very eager to come back and fix things, is he? I mean, it's been more than a MONTH since he showed up. I can't say I'm surprised.

I am saying that if he hired a lawyer to defend himself, that you would not defeat him in court the way you say you would. Hint: Now is when you say "I never said that."

All I've said in this thread is that the contractor does not have the right to cure under the law as you claimed he did. So if his lawyer was claiming a right to cure when there wasn't one in the contract I likely would indeed win on that. Would the OP win on the breach of contract claim? That I don't know and thus you are correct that I never said he would. I'd need more information to opine on that, like seeing the work that was done and reading the contract.

You like to self-elevate yourself above me and talk down to me because I am a lowly contractor and you are an esteemed lawyer.

I have a lot of respect for good contractors. They have skill and knowledge that I don't and provide a very valuable service. I certainly do not look down upon them. I despise the bad ones that are incompetent or rip off people. Unfortunately there seem to be more of the latter than the former. Which are you? I of course don't know not having seen any of your work.

However I see myself as a better contractor than you are a lawyer.

I'm sure you do.

I am qualified to critique lawyers because I have seen enough bad ones.

Yet you don't know all that much about the law or the practice of law. You think you know more than you actually do, which has been evident repeatedly in your posts on this forum. It's not surprising you're not an expert in the law or what lawyers do because you've never studied the law nor what lawyers do. All you've seen is parts of what lawyers do in a few cases in which you encountered them. Sorry to say, Harold, that's hardly the basis for comprehensive knowledge on the subject. It would be like me claiming to know what contractors do after watching a couple of them put up some drywall and lay floor. I'd glean something from that, but hardly enough to be really knowledgeable about contracting. The truly smart people appreciate what they do NOT know as much as what they do know so that they don't make the mistake of thinking they know more than they really do. I'm not about to think I know much about contracting because I am well aware it is a subject I know very little about. That's why I'm not on contracting forums answering people's contracting questions.

Oh, and if you notice, I will respond to all of your posts when you often choose not to answer some of my questions that will nail you against the wall. Like our last exchange.

No, Harold, you don't always address everything that I write, and that's ok. You don't have to do that any more than I have to respond to everything you write. Some points are just not worth pursuing. And as far you thinking you've "nailed" me on anything here, well, go on thinking that if it makes you happy. I happen to know otherwise

[Harold99]

You don't know whether the contract was breached and neither do I since neither of us have read it. If the contractor did not do the job as specified in the agreement then he breached it. The OP will have to prove the breach should he sue. I've made no opinion here of whether he could win. I've just addressed your claim that that contractor must be given the right to cure. Under Texas law that does not appear to be the case unless the contract itself provided a right to cure.

Really TM? A breach of contract is the only grounds the OP can sue?

What we know is that the contractor last showed up over a month ago and agreed to come correct the problems and finish the job the other day and failed to show up. So that tells me that even if there had been a right to cure the contractor was given that opportunity and didn't come through. If this contractor was any good he'd be bending over backwards trying to make this right. But he's certainly not very eager to come back and fix things, is he? I mean, it's been more than a MONTH since he showed up. I can't say I'm surprised.

Maybe it is the last time the contractor showed up to correct his work, but you don't know if there was a line of communication between them over that period of time. Physically showing up is the not the only way to show good faith.

All I've said in this thread is that the contractor does not have the right to cure under the law as you claimed he did. So if his lawyer was claiming a right to cure when there wasn't one in the contract I likely would indeed win on that. Would the OP win on the breach of contract claim? That I don't know and thus you are correct that I never said he would. I'd need more information to opine on that, like seeing the work that was done and reading the contract.

You have no idea how those three words , 'right to cure,' are applied in a situation like this. To suggest that a court would not allow a contractor to fix his work is ridiculous.

I have a lot of respect for good contractors. They have skill and knowledge that I don't and provide a very valuable service. I certainly do not look down upon them. I despise the bad ones that are incompetent or rip off people. Unfortunately there seem to be more of the latter than the former. Which are you? I of course don't know not having seen any of your work.

Which am I? Well, I have never been stiffed or sued over thirty years. I do not advertise and work strictly by word of mouth and referral. I doubt that means anything too you when discrediting is a lawyer's most effective tool.

You may not look down on their trade skills, which you are clearly inferior, but you do look down on a lowly contractor telling you what they learned about our justice system. You will iet him tell you about nails and 2x4's, but not what he experienced in court.

Yet you don't know all that much about the law or the practice of law. You think you know more than you actually do, which has been evident repeatedly in your posts on this forum. It's not surprising you're not an expert in the law or what lawyers do because you've never studied the law nor what lawyers do. All you've seen is parts of what lawyers do in a few cases in which you encountered them. Sorry to say, Harold, that's hardly the basis for comprehensive knowledge on the subject. It would be like me claiming to know what contractors do after watching a couple of them put up some drywall and lay floor. I'd glean something from that, but hardly enough to be really knowledgeable about contracting. The truly smart people appreciate what they do NOT know as much as what they do know so that they don't make the mistake of thinking they know more than they really do. I'm not about to think I know much about contracting because I am well aware it is a subject I know very little about. That's why I'm not on contracting forums answering people's contracting questions.

A person does not have to study a flame to know it is hot. A person does not have to study physics to know the effects of a sudden impact. All a person has to do is know all the facts of a case and watch how it plays out in court. Even my hand surgeon who is a regular expert witness who testified at my trial and many others says "our court system is a joke." I guess he is oblivious too and doesn't know what he witnessed over his lifetime.

As for what I know, I'd say that I have more actual experience with this subject than you because I sued a lady once for not allowing me back into a property to finish my work...and won. Have you ever done that? Have you ever even personally sued someone? I doubt it.

No, Harold, you don't always address everything that I write, and that's ok. You don't have to do that any more than I have to respond to everything you write. Some points are just not worth pursuing. And as far you thinking you've "nailed" me on anything here, well, go on thinking that if it makes you happy. I happen to know otherwise

Difference between us is that I try to respond to all your posts. You outright ignore my posts, especially ones where you were asked to answer hard, revealing questions. Also, I would never expect that I could convince you that you were "nailed against the wall" by a contractor. Not even lawyers that lose miserably in court will admit much about their lack of abilities. A UFC fighter would, but not a lawyer.

[Taxing Matters]

Really TM? A breach of contract is the only grounds the OP can sue?

Based on what the OP has said so far, yes. If you think the OP has something else to go on, by all means do give us your analysis.

Maybe it is the last time the contractor showed up to correct his work, but you don't know if there was a line of communication between them over that period of time. Physically showing up is the not the only way to show good faith.

Correct, there may have been some communication, but the OP didn't mention it. What he did mention is that "We are beyond frustrated..." so I would say whatever communication the contractor has had hasn't been effective at resolving the problem with the OP.

You have no idea how those three words , 'right to cure,' are applied in a situation like this. To suggest that a court would not allow a contractor to fix his work is ridiculous.

Actually I do know what those words mean, evidently more than you do. The judge certainly wouldn't tell the contractor he cannot fix the work. But in Texas the judge will not say that the OP must provide the contractor that opportunity before he files the lawsuit because that state does not give a right to cure in that situation. You've not pointed to any law in Texas to the contrary, so why you continue to argue on this is beyond me. If you think you're right, cite me the Texas law that backs you up. If you can't do it then you really aren't in a position to contradict me on this point. As I said before, maybe in California where you are you'd have the right to cure. But if you didn't know already Texas is a very different state than the People's Republic of California.

Which am I? Well, I have never been stiffed or sued over thirty years. I do not advertise and work strictly by word of mouth and referral.

That's great Harold. That means you're not among the worst of the lot of contractors. And I truly do respect that.

I doubt that means anything too you when discrediting is a lawyer's most effective tool.

Actually, it's not the lawyer's most effective tool, though I wouldn't expect you to know it. From your negative perception I don't doubt you believe it.

You may not look down on their trade skills, which you are clearly inferior, but you do look down on a lowly contractor telling you what they learned about our justice system. You will iet him tell you about nails and 2x4's, but not what he experienced in court.

I've no problem hearing what you experienced in court. The problem that I have is that you seem to think from that limited experience that you are now an expert in the law and what lawyers do. I'd not think that by watching contractors work for a few days that now I'm suddenly expert in what they do. I'd learn something, but I'm smart enough to know that what I would see is far from everything I'd need to know about contracting. You apparently think, though, that what you saw tells you everything you need to know and makes you an expert in the law.

As for what I know, I'd say that I have more actual experience with this subject than you because I sued a lady once for not allowing me back into a property to finish my work...and won. Have you ever done that? Have you ever even personally sued someone? I doubt it.

You think you have more experience than I do in the law and litigation when I've had over 20 years practicing law? That's hilarious, Harold. Go on thinking that if it makes you happy, though. And yes, Harold, I've sued people personally as well as for my clients.

I've done a few home repairs for myself but I don't delude myself into thinking that makes me a contracting expert. I'm quite happy to admit that you, a contractor for 30 years, likely knows far more about that than I do because you have that extensive experience and I don't. But you evidently think my experience in practicing law means nothing.

Difference between us is that I try to respond to all your posts. You outright ignore my posts, especially ones where you were asked to answer hard, revealing questions.

I don't recall where you have asked me to answer "hard revealing questions" that I've not answered. I don't always respond to your diatribes against lawyers, of course. There is no purpose served in arguing with you about that. I'm not going to change your views of lawyers after all, any more than you are likely to change my view of contractors. My main goal on this site is helping people by providing them information on the law, not arguing with you. And going forward, I'm going to focus on helping the people answering questions here. I'll still correct you when you get the law wrong, but I'm not going to endlessly debate your views of lawyers. You can rant about lawyers and the legal system all you want. Just don't expect me to jump in every time you do it. That just takes threads off track and does those asking questions no good.

[Harold99]

Based on what the OP has said so far, yes. If you think the OP has something else to go on, by all means do give us your analysis.

Suing someone for doing shoddy, substandard work is not breach of contract because there is hardly language in a contract stating "I will not do shoddy work." Rather, it is implied that when hiring a professionally licensed craftsman that the work will be performed to industry standards.

Correct, there may have been some communication, but the OP didn't mention it. What he did mention is that "We are beyond frustrated..." so I would say whatever communication the contractor has had hasn't been effective at resolving the problem with the OP.

Really TM, a person has legal grounds to sue, and win, because they are frustrated?

Actually I do know what those words mean, evidently more than you do. The judge certainly wouldn't tell the contractor he cannot fix the work. But in Texas the judge will not say that the OP must provide the contractor that opportunity before he files the lawsuit because that state does not give a right to cure in that situation. You've not pointed to any law in Texas to the contrary, so why you continue to argue on this is beyond me. If you think you're right, cite me the Texas law that backs you up. If you can't do it then you really aren't in a position to contradict me on this point. As I said before, maybe in California where you are you'd have the right to cure. But if you didn't know already Texas is a very different state than the People's Republic of California.

Since when does a judge have to give permission to file a small claims case?

That's great Harold. That means you're not among the worst of the lot of contractors. And I truly do respect that.

I'm "not one of the worst contractors out there?" How generous of you when I've made no such personal digs at you.

Actually, it's not the lawyer's most effective tool, though I wouldn't expect you to know it. From your negative perception I don't doubt you believe it.

A defense lawyer's #1 reason for losing a case is not from being ignorant of the law. They lose it by not being effective, charismatic debaters...just like in life. It is no different when trying to charm and manipulate a jury. They also win by discrediting the other side like a standup comedian does. If you don't know this then you likely don't possess those talents like my lawyer did't. But, you do know this imagery thing, which is why you choose your own special Georgian text while posting here...to appear more "legal." Too bad there aren't any civil defense lawyers here for you to spar with.

I've no problem hearing what you experienced in court. The problem that I have is that you seem to think from that limited experience that you are now an expert in the law and what lawyers do. I'd not think that by watching contractors work for a few days that now I'm suddenly expert in what they do. I'd learn something, but I'm smart enough to know that what I would see is far from everything I'd need to know about contracting. You apparently think, though, that what you saw tells you everything you need to know and makes you an expert in the law.

I never said I was an expert in law. I said I know what I witnessed. Just as the OP and you have seen contractors work before doesn't make you a skilled craftsman. But you can tell a good contractor from a bad one by the way they perform and the look of their finished product. No contracting skills needed.

You think you have more experience than I do in the law and litigation when I've had over 20 years practicing law? That's hilarious, Harold. Go on thinking that if it makes you happy, though. And yes, Harold, I've sued people personally as well as for my clients.

I didn't say that either. I said I once sued for not being allowed to finish a job and that you likely hadn't. Was I wrong?

I've done a few home repairs for myself but I don't delude myself into thinking that makes me a contracting expert. I'm quite happy to admit that you, a contractor for 30 years, likely knows far more about that than I do because you have that extensive experience and I don't. But you evidently think my experience in practicing law means nothing.

There you go again exaggerating my views so you can put them down which is a transparent debating error.

I don't recall where you have asked me to answer "hard revealing questions" that I've not answered. I don't always respond to your diatribes against lawyers, of course. There is no purpose served in arguing with you about that. I'm not going to change your views of lawyers after all, any more than you are likely to change my view of contractors. My main goal on this site is helping people by providing them information on the law, not arguing with you. And going forward, I'm going to focus on helping the people answering questions here. I'll still correct you when you get the law wrong, but I'm not going to endlessly debate your views of lawyers. You can rant about lawyers and the legal system all you want. Just don't expect me to jump in every time you do it. That just takes threads off track and does those asking questions no good.

Prosecutors and police often use our court system to do severe harm to our citizenry. I have witnessed lawyers play that same game to us, and it doesn't take a law degree to see it happen. Just because a homeowner cannot fix a contractor's mistakes doesn't mean he can't tell that he's been screwed. Just because I cannot beat a lawyer in court doesn't mean I can't tell I've been unethically screwed either.

I watched my lawyer play your tact of arguing broken laws to determine negligence and fault. It didn't go so well. I watched the other side employ lies, avoidance and drama and witnessed the clear winner...which was not the broken law tact. So you can recite your 'legal scripture' all you want. I know better now, as does Johnny Cochran.

[cbg]

I'm not weighing in on either side of the issue since I know about as much about contracting as I do nuclear physics but I'm curious, Harold. In your view a month is not long enough for the OP to assume that the contractor is in breach of contract or is going to make the repairs he promised. Okay, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. In your opinion, how long would be long enough? At what point in your view would the OP be justified in taking further action?

[Harold99]

I'm not weighing in on either side of the issue since I know about as much about contracting as I do nuclear physics but I'm curious, Harold. In your view a month is not long enough for the OP to assume that the contractor is in breach of contract or is going to make the repairs he promised. Okay, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it. In your opinion, how long would be long enough? At what point in your view would the OP be justified in taking further action?

I don' think you have to be a contractor to have an edge up at looking at this. I have not been paid by GC's for up to three months, only resolving it by leaving a message on his voicemail "this is the last time I will ask you to pay this bill." I did not threaten to sue, but he knew what I meant. He immediately paid. I think one month was not enough time to make a threat like that, but, after three months he knew the non-payment was not going away as he wished. IOW, after three months I showed him my tenacity.

I did not sue the lady who wouldn't let me in her house to finish for about three months after she stonewalled me. I felt like I had to show the courts that I was not impatient and I gave the lady plenty of time to choose her path and deny me payment.

We know there was some sort of communication between the OP and the contractor because she knew he was supposed to show up, and didn't. He might have been promising every week for a month trying to scrape the money together to redo the whole job. Maybe he didn't want to tell the OP that he was broke and had to hire a real carpenter to help him this time.

People are often wimps and will not follow through with a threat of lawsuit. Contractors/people know this and test people's resolve. Often the only way to get a scumbag contractor to pay to do a job twice is to show him that you will sue if he doesn't fix it. IMO, one month is not enough time to show you gave him time to fix it, and, not enough time to show him YOU WILL SUE!

What the OP has in their favor, at least if you're licensed in CA, is the fact that the contractor has a license. Licensed contractors in CA are not inclined to stiff homeowners. They have a bond that can be seized upon. We also have The State Contractors Board and Consumer Affairs that regulate us. I don't know what type of license this goofball has or how powerful they are but threats of going to them should start right away. Threats of lawsuit later, IMO.

[Taxing Matters]

Suing someone for doing shoddy, substandard work is not breach of contract because there is hardly language in a contract stating "I will not do shoddy work." Rather, it is implied that when hiring a professionally licensed craftsman that the work will be performed to industry standards.

Correct Harold, even if not stated in the contract it is implied in the contract that the work will at least be competently done. Thus when the work is shoddy, that is indeed a breach of contract.

Really TM, a person has legal grounds to sue, and win, because they are frustrated?

No. My point was that the OP's statement that he was beyond frustrated tells me that the contractor has done a poor job communicating with the OP about when or if he's ever going to address the OP's complaints. So even if the contractor had a right to cure he's been given that chance and is evidently not working that hard to fix it. I think you'd agree that it's pretty poor for contractor to leave the work site for month, finally make an appointment to come do the work, and then fail to show and fail to at least call the customer an explain why he won't be showing up. You wouldn't find that acceptable, would you?

Since when does a judge have to give permission to file a small claims case?

The judge doesn't. But if there was a right to cure and the contractor was not given the opportunity to cure before filing the lawsuit the contractor would have a good defense that he was denied his right to cure and the plaintiff would lose.

I'm "not one of the worst contractors out there?" How generous of you when I've made no such personal digs at you.

It wasn't a dig at you. I apologize that it came off that way.

As for the rest of your post, I read it but don't feel any need to address it. I understand your views even though I don't totally agree with them. You and I are never going to see eye to eye on that and I see no point in endlessly arguing over it. I'd rather keep posts in threads started by others on the legal questions they asked to avoid derailing them.

[Harold99]

Correct Harold, even if not stated in the contract it is implied in the contract that the work will at least be competently done. Thus when the work is shoddy, that is indeed a breach of contract.

No. My point was that the OP's statement that he was beyond frustrated tells me that the contractor has done a poor job communicating with the OP about when or if he's ever going to address the OP's complaints. So even if the contractor had a right to cure he's been given that chance and is evidently not working that hard to fix it. I think you'd agree that it's pretty poor for contractor to leave the work site for month, finally make an appointment to come do the work, and then fail to show and fail to at least call the customer an explain why he won't be showing up. You wouldn't find that acceptable, would you?

The judge doesn't. But if there was a right to cure and the contractor was not given the opportunity to cure before filing the lawsuit the contractor would have a good defense that he was denied his right to cure and the plaintiff would lose.

It wasn't a dig at you. I apologize that it came off that way.

As for the rest of your post, I read it but don't feel any need to address it. I understand your views even though I don't totally agree with them. You and I are never going to see eye to eye on that and I see no point in endlessly arguing over it. I'd rather keep posts in threads started by others on the legal questions they asked to avoid derailing them.

This back and forth with you confirms why I would not work for an attorney. IMO, you have made statements that are inaccurate, yet you use your debating and writing skills to explain them away. I find that highly dangerous to me if we were discussing thousands of dollars.

Lawyers defend guilty people every day. Why wouldn't they defend themselves if they were guilty, at fault or had no case? It's what they do. They are unrelenting without consciences because it happened to me...where the better debater/bs'r won. Broken laws were irrelevant. So if you or another attorney did this to me in a courtroom you would inevitably win. So I will stay clear of professional verbal ventriloquists, which is a compliment to most attorneys.

Could you imagine the contractor in this thread finding an attorney that could beat the OP's? It happens all the time.