Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 45
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    7,056

    Default Re: Shoddy Work

    I'm old enough to remember watching the Andy Griffith show as a child. Sometimes I watch the reruns present day and it dawns on me the similarities between you (Harold) and Barney Fife. He thinks he knows everything but knows nothing and always over reacts. He never learns.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    750

    Default Re: Shoddy Work

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    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.
    Ya, and it is mostly lawyering bs. My lawyer could have done the same thing going into my case. He could have stated all the laws and regs that were broken by the other side and even stated a case in San Diego where a cyclist drove through construction cones and signs, around trucks, fell into a ditch, got paralyzed and was awarded $21M. Would you like me to provide a link so I could look lawyerish. Why bother, you will say that the case is not exactly like mine. Just like I can say the cases you provided are not exactly like anything we are discussing here.

    I didn't say you are all wrong with the OP's situation, though I think you are, I said you are wrong about my painting case and about who is responsible for when paint compounds fail. It isn't the store, just like it isn't me when a Milgard window or door mechanically fails. So to validate your position, why don't you tell of the last case YOU tried to back up what you claim? And stop with the legal theorizing and posturing. You don't even know that Pittsburg Paint or Milgard do not sell their products directly to the public. Very few manufacturers do. That means to you they are never responsible for their product? The retailers are? Get real!

    You are also wrong about your legal terms prevailing in a courtroom. If the jury doesn't care about the laws you are stating, they can disregard them. If they don't like your presentation or looks, they can throw you out with the dishwater. If your client if a fat ugly guy versus a cute schoolgirl, that is HUGE.

    TM, you cherry pick what you respond to. Lawyers are manipulators far more than they are experts at law. Just look a Kayleigh. As said, they use legal terms mainly to manipulate their clients into thinking they have a handle on things...Only to never see their client again after they lose. As for reviewing a lawyer...nobody would dare do it so they just run amuck.

    TM, you love your occupation so much that you fail to recognize the evil side of your industry. There are very bad lawyers that hurt innocent folks just for their personal gain...prosecutors too. That is worse than anything a contractor can do to a client...yet you say a layperson is incapable of detecting that immoral behavior because we can't speak legalese. Give me a break! Your arrogance, backed by your minions here, is very unbecoming.

    Quote Quoting budwad
    View Post
    I'm old enough to remember watching the Andy Griffith show as a child. Sometimes I watch the reruns present day and it dawns on me the similarities between you (Harold) and Barney Fife. He thinks he knows everything but knows nothing and always over reacts. He never learns.
    The Barney Fifes are those that sit idol and let aholes like Jack and pg1067 bash on folks who just want some legal advice. Funny nobody complains about that.

    If you want to refute something I said, by all means, jump in.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    47.606 N 122.332 W in body, still at 90 S in my mind.
    Posts
    1,678

    Default Re: Shoddy Work

    And, again, a thread was hijacked by Harold to rant his screed about lawyers and the legal profession. No constructive advice, no questions for specifics, just prating about personal "experience" vs knowledge and expertise.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    750

    Default Re: Shoddy Work

    Quote Quoting Mark47n
    View Post
    And, again, a thread was hijacked by Harold to rant his screed about lawyers and the legal profession. No constructive advice, no questions for specifics, just prating about personal "experience" vs knowledge and expertise.
    I post on about 5% of threads here. I started on topic but the lawyering gibberish started, along with advice I don't agree with as a professional in trade who has sued for the subject matter. So if you can refute my experiences then have at it.

    I used to think TM was impartial. Now I think otherwise. I've given him many opportunities to show an unbiased view and he hasn't. One would be his assumption of why I lost my paint case. What he left out is the likeliness that a small claims half-judge had the balls to rule against a mega-Corp who has a legal team on staff to appeal his decision.

    TM would also say that if I lost my trial, then I'm SOL. But I wasn't. I called the head of Pittsburg Marketing and got them to pay. Advice you'd never get here.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    24,521

    Default Re: Shoddy Work

    Unbiased = Agrees with Harold.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    750

    Default Re: Shoddy Work

    Quote Quoting cbg
    View Post
    Unbiased = Agrees with Harold.
    Truth = Agrees with the clique.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    16,474

    Default Re: Shoddy Work

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    Ya, and it is mostly lawyering bs. My lawyer could have done the same thing going into my case. He could have stated all the laws and regs that were broken by the other side and even stated a case in San Diego where a cyclist drove through construction cones and signs, around trucks, fell into a ditch, got paralyzed and was awarded $21M. Would you like me to provide a link so I could look lawyerish. Why bother, you will say that the case is not exactly like mine. Just like I can say the cases you provided are not exactly like anything we are discussing here.

    I didn't say you are all wrong with the OP's situation, though I think you are, I said you are wrong about my painting case and about who is responsible for when paint compounds fail. It isn't the store, just like it isn't me when a Milgard window or door mechanically fails. So to validate your position, why don't you tell of the last case YOU tried to back up what you claim? And stop with the legal theorizing and posturing. You don't even know that Pittsburg Paint or Milgard do not sell their products directly to the public. Very few manufacturers do. That means to you they are never responsible for their product? The retailers are? Get real!

    You are also wrong about your legal terms prevailing in a courtroom. If the jury doesn't care about the laws you are stating, they can disregard them. If they don't like your presentation or looks, they can throw you out with the dishwater. If your client if a fat ugly guy versus a cute schoolgirl, that is HUGE.

    TM, you cherry pick what you respond to. Lawyers are manipulators far more than they are experts at law. Just look a Kayleigh. As said, they use legal terms mainly to manipulate their clients into thinking they have a handle on things...Only to never see their client again after they lose. As for reviewing a lawyer...nobody would dare do it so they just run amuck.

    TM, you love your occupation so much that you fail to recognize the evil side of your industry. There are very bad lawyers that hurt innocent folks just for their personal gain...prosecutors too. That is worse than anything a contractor can do to a client...yet you say a layperson is incapable of detecting that immoral behavior because we can't speak legalese. Give me a break! Your arrogance, backed by your minions here, is very unbecoming.



    The Barney Fifes are those that sit idol and let aholes like Jack and pg1067 bash on folks who just want some legal advice. Funny nobody complains about that.

    If you want to refute something I said, by all means, jump in.
    Harold, regarding the issue of defective material (having worked is distribution, selling products used in the construction industry for many years) is that whoever the homeowner paid for the product ,installer or retailer, is responsible to the homeowner. Whoever sold the product to the installer or the retailer is responsible to them. ..and you continue up the chain until the manufacturer of the product is ultimately responsible.

    Some manufacturers will insist on being responsible from the homeowner up. However that normally only happens in case of industries where the manufacturer or distributor has had seriously problems with people down the line mistreating the products.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,238

    Default Re: Shoddy Work

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    I didn't say you are all wrong with the OP's situation, though I think you are,
    Because you don't know Texas law.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    I said you are wrong about my painting case and about who is responsible for when paint compounds fail. It isn't the store, just like it isn't me when a Milgard window or door mechanically fails.
    Actually, Harold, you're wrong on that. In some cases it can be the store AND the manufacturer. You think the store is automatically off the hook? You don't understand the law well, and yet try to tell me I don't know what the law is. That's amusing. Moreover, your post shows again that other problem I said you have. You fail to read things closely. I didn't say you didn't have a good case against the paint company. I expressly said I didn't know why you lost your case as I didn't see it. I expressly said there could have been several reasons why you lost. I also said that you may indeed have had a good case under a breach of the implied warranty of fitness and linked you the California statute. But to win on that claim you needed to show your case met the requirements for it. So if you didn't argue for it the judge was unlikely to just hand you the case anyway. So I was offering you way that might have been successful had you argued it. And yet it appears that despite all that all you read out of it was that I said the store was responsible and not the manufacturer when that is not what I said at all. All I said is that the manufacturer isn't liable on a theory of implied contract because you didn't have a contract with the manufacturer. I think even you can see that. Which means to win you need to argue the manufacturer is liable based on something else, like the breach of warranty for fitness for a particular purpose. You may not think so, but it does actually matter what legal basis you use for your case.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    You are also wrong about your legal terms prevailing in a courtroom. If the jury doesn't care about the laws you are stating, they can disregard them. If they don't like your presentation or looks, they can throw you out with the dishwater. If your client if a fat ugly guy versus a cute schoolgirl, that is HUGE.
    I never said the law was the ONLY thing that matters in the courtroom. Of course the skill of persuasion matters a great deal. But the law does matter a lot in litigation, something you fail to recognize. For example, if the plaintiff can't even plead all the elements of the claim he's making in his complaint the judge will dismiss the case or toss it out on summary judgment and a jury will never see it. Bear in mind that well over 90% of cases — both civil and criminal — never even make it to trial. Those are the sorts of things you never see when you sit in a courtroom watching a trial. And even in a trial there are a lot of legal things going on that jurors never even notice because they don't know to look for them, but that nevertheless can significantly impact the outcome.

    As for the rest of your post, that's just your familiar ranting against lawyers and I need not respond to that. You have your opinions. You see what you want to see. As misguided as I think your opinions are, you are nonetheless entitled to believe what you want. You earlier jumped on me for a perceived dig at you, and yet your post is filled with digs at me. You evidently expect others to treat you better than you are willing to treat them.


  9. #39
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    750

    Default Re: Shoddy Work

    Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
    View Post
    Because you don't know Texas law.



    Actually, Harold, you're wrong on that. In some cases it can be the store AND the manufacturer. You think the store is automatically off the hook? You don't understand the law well, and yet try to tell me I don't know what the law is. That's amusing. Moreover, your post shows again that other problem I said you have. You fail to read things closely. I didn't say you didn't have a good case against the paint company. I expressly said I didn't know why you lost your case as I didn't see it. I expressly said there could have been several reasons why you lost. I also said that you may indeed have had a good case under a breach of the implied warranty of fitness and linked you the California statute. But to win on that claim you needed to show your case met the requirements for it. So if you didn't argue for it the judge was unlikely to just hand you the case anyway. So I was offering you way that might have been successful had you argued it. And yet it appears that despite all that all you read out of it was that I said the store was responsible and not the manufacturer when that is not what I said at all. All I said is that the manufacturer isn't liable on a theory of implied contract because you didn't have a contract with the manufacturer. I think even you can see that. Which means to win you need to argue the manufacturer is liable based on something else, like the breach of warranty for fitness for a particular purpose. You may not think so, but it does actually matter what legal basis you use for your case.



    I never said the law was the ONLY thing that matters in the courtroom. Of course the skill of persuasion matters a great deal. But the law does matter a lot in litigation, something you fail to recognize. For example, if the plaintiff can't even plead all the elements of the claim he's making in his complaint the judge will dismiss the case or toss it out on summary judgment and a jury will never see it. Bear in mind that well over 90% of cases — both civil and criminal — never even make it to trial. Those are the sorts of things you never see when you sit in a courtroom watching a trial. And even in a trial there are a lot of legal things going on that jurors never even notice because they don't know to look for them, but that nevertheless can significantly impact the outcome.

    As for the rest of your post, that's just your familiar ranting against lawyers and I need not respond to that. You have your opinions. You see what you want to see. As misguided as I think your opinions are, you are nonetheless entitled to believe what you want. You earlier jumped on me for a perceived dig at you, and yet your post is filled with digs at me. You evidently expect others to treat you better than you are willing to treat them.

    I'm going to fill you in on something TM. In small claims court, lawyers and juries are not allowed. Therefore, for me to win a case like that, it not required of me to have a law degree, be familiar with all the legal terms, and especially to use the term "breach of implied warrant of fitness" in order to win that case.

    I would assume if you were suing someone in small claims court and you started throwing legal terms around to impress the judge, he'd give you no advantage over to poor slob you were suing, or being sued by. Your main advantage would be your abilty to confuse, mislead and omitt information in typical lawyer style.

    Like I said why don't you tell of a case you tried that backs up what you are claiming...that Best Buy foots the bill for defective refrigerators they sell and not LG? (now tell me that I just changed the subject.) Then tell how many times you tried a case in Texas?

    Lawyer arrogance, which I've seen many times, is when a lawyer appears to discredit someone, that they are truly discredited. Similar to when a comedian makes a fool out of someone, that that person is really a fool. Think about it. It's a big show that lawyers perform just like comedians. They just do it in Armani suits with all this fake respect they show for each other, the judge, the jury and the whole in-justice system.

    Quote Quoting llworking
    View Post
    Harold, regarding the issue of defective material (having worked is distribution, selling products used in the construction industry for many years) is that whoever the homeowner paid for the product ,installer or retailer, is responsible to the homeowner. Whoever sold the product to the installer or the retailer is responsible tuo them. ..and you continue up the chain until the manufacturer of the product is ultimately responsible.

    Some manufacturers will insist on being responsible from the homeowner up. However that normally only happens in case of industries where the manufacturer or distributor has had seriously problems with people down the line mistreating the products.
    I sued the paint manufacturer directly. If that was true then why didnt the judge throw out the case and tell me to sue the paint store first? Instead he heard the case.

    If you are selling used equipment then that's a whole different animal.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    8,238

    Default Re: Shoddy Work

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    I'm going to fill you in on something TM. In small claims court, lawyers and juries are not allowed. Therefore, for me to win a case like that, it not required of me to have a law degree, be familiar with all the legal terms, and especially to use the term "breach of implied warrant of fitness" in order to win that case.
    While you would not necessarily have needed to know that exact phrase, you'd certainly do better if you knew what was needed to win such a case. The small claims court judge may not require you to spout legal terms, but the judge does expect you to show that you are entitled to the relief you are seeking, which means you need to prove all the elements of some claim that the law recognizes. If you were able to show the breach of implied warranty of fitness was breached you'd have won. I can only assume you didn't do that, nor showed you met the requirements of any other valid claim, and that's why you lost. As the plaintiff, the burden was on you to make that case.

    Quote Quoting Harold99
    View Post
    Like I said why don't you tell of a case you tried that backs up what you are claiming...that Best Buy foots the bill for defective refrigerators they sell and not LG?
    Again, you fail to read closely. I have now told you twice that BOTH the retailer and manufacturer may be liable for breach of the implied warranty of fitness. And I need not give you a case for that as the statute itself says that. Try reading California Civil Code § 1791.1(b), which defines the warranty:

    (b) “Implied warranty of fitness” means (1) that when the retailer, distributor, or manufacturer has reason to know any particular purpose for which the consumer goods are required, and further, that the buyer is relying on the skill and judgment of the seller to select and furnish suitable goods, then there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose and (2) that when there is a sale of an assistive device sold at retail in this state, then there is an implied warranty by the retailer that the device is specifically fit for the particular needs of the buyer.

    The same is true for the related warranty of merchantability in subsection, as stated in California Civil Code 1792:

    Unless disclaimed in the manner prescribed by this chapter, every sale of consumer goods that are sold at retail in this state shall be accompanied by the manufacturer’s and the retail seller’s implied warranty that the goods are merchantable. The retail seller shall have a right of indemnity against the manufacturer in the amount of any liability under this section.

    I bolded the relevant terms in both statutes so you can't miss it. And while the statute should be enough, I'll give one case example where the seller, not manufacturer, was sued and held liable for breach of the warranty of fitness. The seller sold an aircraft to the buyer, and upon purchase the buyer found out the airplane did not fly. The trial court found for the buyer, and the appeals court agreed, stating:

    ‘* * * the seller by the very act of offering his goods for sale, asserts or represents that they are merchantable articles of their kind or are fit for some special purpose and that the buyer relies upon this implied assertion or representation.’

    Lindberg v. Coutches, 167 Cal. App. 2d Supp. 828, 832, 334 P.2d 701, 703 (Cal. App. Dep't Super. Ct. 1959). There are similar cases against sellers for the breach of the warranty of merchantability.

    As to the rest of your post, that's just more of your anti-lawyer ranting, and as I've said before, I already know well how you feel about lawyers.

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Shoddy Air Conditioner Work with Licenced Contractor
    By desertsage in forum Construction, Repair and Renovation
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 08-10-2011, 10:41 AM
  2. Shoddy Mechanical Work
    By mary702 in forum Cars and Dealerships
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-07-2010, 09:56 PM
  3. Poor Shoddy Work by Contractor
    By daisydodo in forum Construction, Repair and Renovation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 12-12-2009, 10:44 AM
  4. Shoddy Workmanship - Contract Resolution
    By Snapped in forum Construction, Repair and Renovation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-07-2009, 07:34 PM
  5. Shoddy Workmanship on Lawn
    By sedy in forum Construction, Repair and Renovation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-04-2006, 05:09 PM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources