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.