Shoddy Work

[Taxing Matters]

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.

While my statements have been accurate, you are entitled to your opinion.

I know several contractors around here that are delighted to work for lawyers and have never had problems doing so. They do very good work, keep their commitments, and their customers — including their lawyer customers — have nothing to complain about. IMO if you are that kind of contractor you should experience no problems working for attorneys. But again, you are entitled to your opinion on the matter.

[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.

TM,
It is statements like this that gives me flashbacks. Why would a contract have "implied/non-written" language in it? If it isn't spelled out in simple English, then it isn't in the contract. If a homeowner got three estimates from real deck builders for $10K and then accepted a $5K bid from a handyman, is there "implied language" in the contract that the decks should look very similar?

The term "implied" language would scare the hell out of me if a lawyer threw that one at me. Nearly anything can be "implied" like a lawyer saying: "All new-construction windows have to be stuccoed afterwards. Why aren't you stuccoing my windows?" Contractor: "Sir, I am not a stucco man and the contract does not include the stucco work." Lawyer: "When I hired you you should have informed me that you would not do the stucco work, therefore it was implied that stucco work was included. I didn't know that you weren't going to finish your job. I am just a poor victimized homeowner." Then he'd proceed to shred me with more BS in the courtroom. Probably have me put him up in the Ritz Carlton until the job is finished...to his satisfaction.

Get my drift TM? When you lose a few hundred thousand dollars from a scumbag lawyer who can turn Mother Theresa into a whore in front of your eyes, who would doubt that experience and poosibly walk into that fire again? Would you enter into a contract with a UFC fighter, when if there was a disagreement, it would be settled with fists? Same thing!

[Taxing Matters]

TM,
It is statements like this that gives me flashbacks. Why would a contract have "implied/non-written" language in it? If it isn't spelled out in simple English, then it isn't in the contract. If a homeowner got three estimates from real deck builders for $10K and then accepted a $5K bid from a handyman, is there "implied language" in the contract that the decks should look very similar?

No, the contract would not imply that the work Contractor A does would be similar to what Contractor B does. But it would be implied that the work is at least competently done. Thinks about it: the homeowner is not going to contract for a shoddy job, right? No one is going to do that. And the contractor knows it. So even if they don't expressly state that the work has to be at least competently done the courts will nevertheless see that it was implied by the contract. It's implied because the very nature of the contract is such that both parties (and pretty much anyone else) would understand that at a minimum competent work was expected.

As to your fears about hiring lawyers, I think they are overblown but as I said before, you're entitled to your opinion on the matter and refuse working for lawyers if you wish. I know plenty of contractors happy to work for lawyers; they aren't as spooked by it as you are. And those contractors who do a good job don't get sued by their lawyer clients. But I know I won't persuade you from your views given the depth of your hate for lawyers.

[Harold99]

No, the contract would not imply that the work Contractor A does would be similar to what Contractor B does. But it would be implied that the work is at least competently done. Thinks about it: the homeowner is not going to contract for a shoddy job, right? No one is going to do that. And the contractor knows it. So even if they don't expressly state that the work has to be at least competently done the courts will nevertheless see that it was implied by the contract. It's implied because the very nature of the contract is such that both parties (and pretty much anyone else) would understand that at a minimum competent work was expected.

You talk as though you know what will happen in a courtroom or how to argue a case to win. Well, I once sued Pittsburg Paint [the second largest paint company in the world] for their paint not competently performing like any and all other paints and lost. This exterior trim paint was applied in 85 degree, 10% humidity weather on third floor facia boards and two days later it secreted a black, coke-like substance and dripped down every facia board. It is called 'surfactant exudation' and the whole job was ruined. Even with photos and weather charts for those days, I lost.

Purchasing paint is a form of a contract too. That contract should come with the expectation that paint will last more than two days. The judge thought otherwise. You arguing theory without experience is very novice of you. If a homeowner hired a handyman to build his kitchen cabinets and they turned out like sh!t, the judge would laugh the plaintiff out of the courtroom if he thought $5K would get him a competently performed cabinet job comparable to a $10K job like real cabinet makers would charge.

You argue like my lawyer did...out of theory and not practical experience or reasonable expectation of flawed judges and juries. He too theorized that if a party broke about five safety laws, and we got negligence per se, that we would prevail. You too live in that same 'theory bubble' which seems to lack experience. Or, if you do have experience, tell of your cases that ruled otherwise to support your position. I have never heard you share a single case to support your positions here like I do.

As to your fears about hiring lawyers, I think they are overblown but as I said before, you're entitled to your opinion on the matter and refuse working for lawyers if you wish. I know plenty of contractors happy to work for lawyers; they aren't as spooked by it as you are. And those contractors who do a good job don't get sued by their lawyer clients. But I know I won't persuade you from your views given the depth of your hate for lawyers.

I would wager that not a single one of those contractors was taken for six figures by a sleazebag, lying lawyer though. Huge difference!

Here, experience means very little because very few here have any to tout. But once you have it, posturing and theorizing, as many here do, is unimpressive.

[Taxing Matters]

You talk as though you know what will happen in a courtroom or how to argue a case to win.

Considering that I have over 20 years experience as a lawyer, yes I do talk that way. That's 20 more years experience as a lawyer than you have. You seem to think that your experience in just a couple of cases you were in involved with makes you some kind of legal expert. News flash for you: it doesn't.

Well, I once sued Pittsburg Paint [the second largest paint company in the world] for their paint not competently performing like any and all other paints and lost. This exterior trim paint was applied in 85 degree, 10% humidity weather on third floor facia boards and two days later it secreted a black, coke-like substance and dripped down every facia board. It is called 'surfactant exudation' and the whole job was ruined. Even with photos and weather charts for those days, I lost.

That's unfortunate, Harold, but not having seen the case you presented and the defense presented by the paint company, I can't say why it is that you lost. It may be that you or your lawyer, if you had one, simply made a poor argument. Or it may be that the defense provided a better case than you did.

Purchasing paint is a form of a contract too.

Yes, it is. It's contract with the place you bought it from. But did you buy the paint directly from Pittsburgh Paint? If the answer is no then you had no contract with Pittsburgh Paint and arguing implied contract would not work. You may have had a good case for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, but the law on that is different from the implied contract to perform work in a competent manner. See California Civil Code section 1791.1. What was the actual claim you made? Did you argue for breach of that warranty? If you didn't advance the right argument, you'd lose. It's not quite as simple as you seem to think it is.

You arguing theory without experience is very novice of you.

No Harold, I have plenty of expeirence because of my more than 20 years as a lawyer. Rather, your statement is great illustration of what I said before: one of your problems on this forum is that you make unwaranted assumptions. This is one of them. You have no idea what all I've done in my practice, yet you talk like you do. You are making assumptions for which you have little basis because you don't like the answers I give. And that is why you make a lot of wrong answers here.

Here in this thread the issue is Texas law. Under Texas law, there is an implied warranty that repairs would be done in a good and workmanlike manner. And, moreover, that implied warranty cannot be waived in the contract. In a case where homeowners sued their contractor, Melody Homes, for improperly connecting the washing machine drain, and won the Texas Supreme Court upheld the judgment against the contractor stating:

We define good and workmanlike as that quality of work performed by one who has the knowledge, training, or experience necessary for the successful practice of a trade or occupation and performed in a manner generally considered proficient by those capable of judging such work. See Griffin v. Eakin, 656 S.W.2d 187, 190–91 (Tex.App.—Austin 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Burnett & Bean v. Miller, 205 Ala. 606, 88 So. 871, 872 (1921). Cf. Garcia v. Color Tile Distrib. Co., 75 N.M. 570, 408 P.2d 145, 148 (1965); Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Miller, 80 Okl. 265, 195 P. 1083, 1090 (1921). We do not require repairmen to guarantee the results of their work; we only require those who repair or modify existing tangible goods or property to perform those services in a good and workmanlike manner.8

In this case, the breach of the implied warranty was plainly within the common knowledge of laymen and did not require expert testimony. The jurors had sufficient knowledge to find that the failure to connect a washing machine drain would not be considered good and workmanlike by those capable of judging repair work.

Consistent with the trend in recent consumer protection legislation and sound public policy, we further hold that the implied warranty that repair or modification services of existing tangible goods or property will be performed in a good and workmanlike manner may not be waived or disclaimed. See e.g. Tex.Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.42 (Vernon Supp.1987) (DTPA waiver unenforceable and void); Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5221f, § 18 (Vernon Supp.1987) (waiver of the provisions of the Manufactured Housing Standards Act unenforceable and void). It would be incongruous if public policy required the creation of an implied warranty, yet allowed the warranty to be disclaimed and its protection eliminated merely by a pre-printed standard form disclaimer or an unintelligible merger clause. See G–W–L, Inc. v. Robichaux, 643 S.W.2d 392, 394–95 (Tex.1982) (Spears, J., dissenting).

Melody Home Mfg. Co. v. Barnes, 741 S.W.2d 349, 354–55 (Tex. 1987). There are many, many more cases in Texas on this, some of which plaintiffs won, some of which they lost. Just because the implied warranty that repairs will be done in a workmanlike manner exists does not mean that every plantiff suing on that will win. They still have to prove to a judge or jury that the contractor breached that implied warranty.

In California it is called breach of implied covenant to perform work in a good and competent manner and is reflected in the California Courts standard civil jury instruction 4510. Read the instructions that are given to the jury in such a case and the directions for use that follow. It provides a lot of citation to California law that explains where the implied covenant comes from and the extent to which it applies. So as a contractor in that state, you need to understand this since that implied covenant might be used against you should your customer feel you did a shoddy job.

I have never heard you share a single case to support your positions here like I do.

LOL, I share relevant case law here all the time. You NEVER do. Look at this thread. I've provided a lot of Texas law. You've provided none. All you do is refer to a couple of cases that you were involved with in California and for points that really have nothing to do with the issue in thread. Mostly your case examples are along of the lines of "I lost my personal injury bike case because my lawyer was crappy and the opposing lawyer was a sleazeball."

Here, experience means very little because very few here have any to tout. But once you have it, posturing and theorizing, as many here do, is unimpressive.

True, only a couple people posting on these boards are actuallly lawyers. Yet, you too have very little legal experience, and none as a lawyer, and yet that doesn't stop you from acting like you have tons of legal knowledge and experience, does it?

[Harold99]

Considering that I have over 20 years experience as a lawyer, yes I do talk that way. That's 20 more years experience as a lawyer than you have. You seem to think that your experience in just a couple of cases you were in involved with makes you some kind of legal expert. News flash for you: it doesn't.

That's unfortunate, Harold, but not having seen the case you presented and the defense presented by the paint company, I can't say why it is that you lost. It may be that you or your lawyer, if you had one, simply made a poor argument. Or it may be that the defense provided a better case than you did.

Yes, it is. It's contract with the place you bought it from. But did you buy the paint directly from Pittsburgh Paint? If the answer is no then you had no contract with Pittsburgh Paint and arguing implied contract would not work. You may have had a good case for breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, but the law on that is different from the implied contract to perform work in a competent manner. See California Civil Code section 1791.1. What was the actual claim you made? Did you argue for breach of that warranty? If you didn't advance the right argument, you'd lose. It's not quite as simple as you seem to think it is.

No Harold, I have plenty of expeirence because of my more than 20 years as a lawyer. Rather, your statement is great illustration of what I said before: one of your problems on this forum is that you make unwaranted assumptions. This is one of them. You have no idea what all I've done in my practice, yet you talk like you do. You are making assumptions for which you have little basis because you don't like the answers I give. And that is why you make a lot of wrong answers here.

Here in this thread the issue is Texas law. Under Texas law, there is an implied warranty that repairs would be done in a good and workmanlike manner. And, moreover, that implied warranty cannot be waived in the contract. In a case where homeowners sued their contractor, Melody Homes, for improperly connecting the washing machine drain, and won the Texas Supreme Court upheld the judgment against the contractor stating:

We define good and workmanlike as that quality of work performed by one who has the knowledge, training, or experience necessary for the successful practice of a trade or occupation and performed in a manner generally considered proficient by those capable of judging such work. See Griffin v. Eakin, 656 S.W.2d 187, 190–91 (Tex.App.—Austin 1983, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Burnett & Bean v. Miller, 205 Ala. 606, 88 So. 871, 872 (1921). Cf. Garcia v. Color Tile Distrib. Co., 75 N.M. 570, 408 P.2d 145, 148 (1965); Fairbanks, Morse & Co. v. Miller, 80 Okl. 265, 195 P. 1083, 1090 (1921). We do not require repairmen to guarantee the results of their work; we only require those who repair or modify existing tangible goods or property to perform those services in a good and workmanlike manner.8

In this case, the breach of the implied warranty was plainly within the common knowledge of laymen and did not require expert testimony. The jurors had sufficient knowledge to find that the failure to connect a washing machine drain would not be considered good and workmanlike by those capable of judging repair work.

Consistent with the trend in recent consumer protection legislation and sound public policy, we further hold that the implied warranty that repair or modification services of existing tangible goods or property will be performed in a good and workmanlike manner may not be waived or disclaimed. See e.g. Tex.Bus. & Com. Code Ann. § 17.42 (Vernon Supp.1987) (DTPA waiver unenforceable and void); Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5221f, § 18 (Vernon Supp.1987) (waiver of the provisions of the Manufactured Housing Standards Act unenforceable and void). It would be incongruous if public policy required the creation of an implied warranty, yet allowed the warranty to be disclaimed and its protection eliminated merely by a pre-printed standard form disclaimer or an unintelligible merger clause. See G–W–L, Inc. v. Robichaux, 643 S.W.2d 392, 394–95 (Tex.1982) (Spears, J., dissenting).

Melody Home Mfg. Co. v. Barnes, 741 S.W.2d 349, 354–55 (Tex. 1987). There are many, many more cases in Texas on this, some of which plaintiffs won, some of which they lost. Just because the implied warranty that repairs will be done in a workmanlike manner exists does not mean that every plantiff suing on that will win. They still have to prove to a judge or jury that the contractor breached that implied warranty.

In California it is called breach of implied covenant to perform work in a good and competent manner and is reflected in the California Courts standard civil jury instruction 4510. Read the instructions that are given to the jury in such a case and the directions for use that follow. It provides a lot of citation to California law that explains where the implied covenant comes from and the extent to which it applies. So as a contractor in that state, you need to understand this since that implied covenant might be used against you should your customer feel you did a shoddy job.

LOL, I share relevant case law here all the time. You NEVER do. Look at this thread. I've provided a lot of Texas law. You've provided none. All you do is refer to a couple of cases that you were involved with in California and for points that really have nothing to do with the issue in thread. Mostly your case examples are along of the lines of "I lost my personal injury bike case because my lawyer was crappy and the opposing lawyer was a sleazeball."


True, only a couple people posting on these boards are actuallly lawyers. Yet, you too have very little legal experience, and none as a lawyer, and yet that doesn't stop you from acting like you have tons of legal knowledge and experience, does it?

Nearly everything you said is wrong or not the whole truth, yet I am supposed to accept it because you've been at your job for 20 years? If that was true then my lawyer of 30 years should have dominated the opposing counsel who only had 9 years experience. But as you know, you could argue against years on the job just as easily as you can argue for it. IOW, you lack integrity when it comes to arguing a point...as most lawyers do.

Sorry, I do not give automatic respect for the title of doctor or lawyer. It's a cultural thing that I never signed up for because I've been screwed by both due to shear incompetence. If what I am saying is foreign to you then you are more of a novice than I thought.

To suggest that a layperson such as myself cannot see through a doctor or a lawyer is ludicrous and shows you are far more biased and untruthful than you are aware of.

[PayrolGuy]

Sorry, I do not give automatic respect for the title of doctor or lawyer. It's a cultural thing that I never signed up for because I've been screwed by both due to shear incompetence.

Have you considered that your being "screwed" by professionals has more to do with you than with the professionals?

[llworking]

Nearly everything you said is wrong or not the whole truth, yet I am supposed to accept it because you've been at your job for 20 years? If that was true then my lawyer of 30 years should have dominated the opposing counsel who only had 9 years experience. But as you know, you could argue against years on the job just as easily as you can argue for it. IOW, you lack integrity when it comes to arguing a point...as most lawyers do.

Sorry, I do not give automatic respect for the title of doctor or lawyer. It's a cultural thing that I never signed up for because I've been screwed by both due to shear incompetence. If what I am saying is foreign to you then you are more of a novice than I thought.

To suggest that a layperson such as myself cannot see through a doctor or a lawyer is ludicrous and shows you are far more biased and untruthful than you are aware of.

Harold, it would cause you a lot less stress to simply go away and stop posting on this forum. This post alone has caused you to make an utter fool of yourself.

[Harold99]

Harold, it would cause you a lot less stress to simply go away and stop posting on this forum. This post alone has caused you to make an utter fool of yourself.

Hey 2werking, I never asked to become one of the clique here so no hard feelings for not being accepted.

Lawyers use their legal terms to impress, only to let you down later when they really have to perform their craft of debating. What happens here is not much different. If you cannot see through TM's last post I don't have the stamina to point it all out this time. It is filled with garbage. Besides, most of you guys wouldn't doubt him no matter what he said. And because you don't know any better.

Nearly all politicians are lawyers. Why? Not to know law, but to know how to mislead and control people. If you do not see TM employing that skill then you probably don't see your political party doing to you either. You probably don't even see Kayleigh McEnany (the best) employing her Harvard Law lawyer skills. No law knowledge needed by politicians, just lawyering/BS skills. In my trial too, no laws were ever discussed by the other side...just Comedy Central discrediting...like here.

Don't you ever wonder why TM has never referred to a single case he tried? It's curious to me.

[Taxing Matters]

Nearly everything you said is wrong or not the whole truth...

Really? I have provided Texas law here and supported it by actually citing relevant statutes and case law. If you think I'm wrong, by all means provide us YOUR legal analysis with the citations to back it up. So far, you've not done that. Why not? If you know I'm wrong, as you say, you should be able to do that.

As for the rest, I'm well aware of your opinions about lawyers. You're entitled to believe what you want.