Potential Issue with Mechanic Labor Charges

[Harold99]

Under these rules, the dealer really needed to specifically tell you what it would cost to do the extra work if it was going to exceed the estimate of the work dealer already gave you. If the dealer doesn't do that, this rule gives you a defense to the dealer's claim to the extra labor charges.

That said, IMO paying the dealer a reasonable sum for the extra work at your request would be a fair thing to do. The dealer was doing the extra work at your request so that you could have the car for the weekend. You had to know that would cost the dealer in labor to pay the mechanics to do it. But that's just my personal opinion and has nothing to do with your legal rights in this situation.

The OP did not ask the mechanic to take it apart not knowing if it could finished within the estimated timeframe. It was the mechanic who promised the OP his car back at the end of the day. If the mechanic said the job would take four days, and the OP wanted it back in one, then the OP might be compelled to pay extra. But that was not the case.

When the mechanic screwed up and could not give the car back by the end of the day, he had two choices. Put the car back together as originally agreed or get the OP a rental car on the mechanics dime.

When contractors can't finish a job by the end of the day, it is on us to jumper the electrical, bypass the plumbing, close open subfloors or board up openings on our dime, even though it involves "extra work" that was not outlined in the quote. Fulfilling the original contract is not "extra work" unless work is performed outside the original scope of work.

[Mark47n]

The OP did not ask the mechanic to take it apart not knowing if it could finished within the estimated timeframe. It was the mechanic who promised the OP his car back at the end of the day. If the mechanic said the job would take four days, and the OP wanted it back in one, then the OP might be compelled to pay extra. But that was not the case.

When the mechanic screwed up and could not give the car back by the end of the day, he had two choices. Put the car back together as originally agreed or get the OP a rental car on the mechanics dime.

When contractors can't finish a job by the end of the day, it is on us to jumper the electrical, bypass the plumbing, close open subfloors or board up openings on our dime, even though it involves "extra work" that was not outlined in the quote. Fulfilling the original contract is not "extra work" unless work is performed outside the original scope of work.

Let's get the big issue out of the way first: mechanics are not contractors in the sense that you're using for a comparison.

We don't know if the the mechanic ordered the wrong part in error or if the wrong part was delivered in error. Regardless, it's not uncommon for a mechanic to begin disassembly of a car prior to having all of the parts. It would also be completely reasonable to require payment for the additional labor of reassembly which would not be a part of the original scope.

By the way, performing work that is not in compliance of the NEC that is in force in the state/municipality can lead to fire and invalidate insurance in the event of fire. Also, scope documents should also be explicit in not only what is included but what is excluded and the general conditions that are expected and the assumptions that are made. If there are issues that are found to exist in an existing structure that do not comply with general assumptions, such s the building meeting code requirements for the time that it was built, for instance, and that requires a change order or an RFI then the customer may well be on the hook for that. Construction contracts are not absolute. The are simply an agreement as to what each parties expectations are. additional work requires additional payments. Reassembling a car, if it was disassembled per typical business practices, and you demand reassembly then that is a change in original scope and will require additional payments.

[Harold99]

Let's get the big issue out of the way first: mechanics are not contractors in the sense that you're using for a comparison.

Not so! A mechanic can disable a needed car and leave it that way for days. I can disable a needed house and leave it that way for days. But when it is a one day job it is the business' requirement to give the car or house back at the end of the day. If it requires additional wiring, plumbing, boarding up or reassembly then it's the business' responsibility to provide that. Same with a mechanic.

We don't know if the the mechanic ordered the wrong part in error or if the wrong part was delivered in error. Regardless, it's not uncommon for a mechanic to begin disassembly of a car prior to having all of the parts. It would also be completely reasonable to require payment for the additional labor of reassembly which would not be a part of the original scope.

By the way, performing work that is not in compliance of the NEC that is in force in the state/municipality can lead to fire and invalidate insurance in the event of fire. Also, scope documents should also be explicit in not only what is included but what is excluded and the general conditions that are expected and the assumptions that are made. If there are issues that are found to exist in an existing structure that do not comply with general assumptions, such s the building meeting code requirements for the time that it was built, for instance, and that requires a change order or an RFI then the customer may well be on the hook for that. Construction contracts are not absolute. The are simply an agreement as to what each parties expectations are. additional work requires additional payments. Reassembling a car, if it was disassembled per typical business practices, and you demand reassembly then that is a change in original scope and will require additional payments.

You are waving a broad brush. A business owner is fully responsible for all of his actions. Starting a job without the parts and materials to complete the job is pure negligence and not "typical business practice."

[flyingron]

Starting a job and not realize you need more parts is not negligence and really not uncommon business practice. Hell, I told the dang Toyota dealer that I read the code on my car and I needed a driver side O2 sensor when I made the appointment. You'd have thought that they'd have verified that they had that part when I came in. Nope, they didn't even think about ordering it.

What is missing here was that there was no contractual expectation that the car would be finished in one day. The dealer was gracious in offering to either keep it disassembled (minimizing labor cost) or reassemble it and letting him have the car back.
=

[Harold99]

Starting a job and not realize you need more parts is not negligence and really not uncommon business practice. Hell, I told the dang Toyota dealer that I read the code on my car and I needed a driver side O2 sensor when I made the appointment. You'd have thought that they'd have verified that they had that part when I came in. Nope, they didn't even think about ordering it.

What is missing here was that there was no contractual expectation that the car would be finished in one day. The dealer was gracious in offering to either keep it disassembled (minimizing labor cost) or reassemble it and letting him have the car back.
=

It would be if they only needed one part and started the job without it...and couldn't get it.

[flyingron]

It's not "negligence." Pour business planning, but it's not actionable negligence.

[PayrolGuy]

It's not "negligence." Pour business planning, but it's not actionable negligence.

I don't know that is even poor planning. Let's say the proper part came in and the mech didn't have the car ready to install the part. The OP would likely not be happy that they had to wait longer.

[Harold99]

It's not "negligence." Pour business planning, but it's not actionable negligence.

Tearing a car or house apart before one is in possession of the needed parts to repair it, when the job was promised to be completed that same day, is 'something.' Call it whatever you want. But it is a mistake that the mechanic or contractor is liable for.

99.99% of these situations do not end up in courtrooms, so don't use legal terms that are inapplicable and inappropriate just to sound smart or informed.

I don't know that is even poor planning. Let's say the proper part came in and the mech didn't have the car ready to install the part. The OP would likely not be happy that they had to wait longer.

If the OP was the owner of the shop you'd be telling him how he screwed up. How he likely got the part number wrong, how he uses unreliable venders, how he jumped the gun before having the part, how he shouldn't have promised the car that day, how he has lame mechanics working for him, how he should make the car whole again since it never should have been torn apart, how he owes the customer a rental car for the weekend...

This thread is par for the course...the OP is always wrong and has no case. And you guys wouldn't offer a defense argument if it was on the tip of your tongue.

[Mark47n]

Here we are again, Harold. It's your show.

Tearing a car or house apart before one is in possession of the needed parts to repair it, when the job was promised to be completed that same day, is 'something.' Call it whatever you want. But it is a mistake that the mechanic or contractor is liable for.

99.99% of these situations do not end up in courtrooms, so don't use legal terms that are inapplicable and inappropriate just to sound smart or informed.

It is not uncommon or actionable (not a "legal term") to begin work before all parts in in possession in either a mechanic's shop or in construction. While delays in parts can cause other issues waiting on parts may also cause delays. A mechanic telling you that the car will be done on date X is not binding, it's an approximation. Other issues could be discovered in the course of performing the original service leading to yet other delays.

You're right, most of these cases don't end up in a court room because there will be nowhere to go with them. As to PayrolGuy's use of language: have you considered that words mean specific things and Payrol guy has a a lexicon at his disposal that allows him to select the proper vocabulary to make his point clearly as opposed to your angst-ridden and often sloppy prose?

If the OP was the owner of the shop you'd be telling him how he screwed up. How he likely got the part number wrong, how he uses unreliable venders, how he jumped the gun before having the part, how he shouldn't have promised the car that day, how he has lame mechanics working for him, how he should make the car whole again since it never should have been torn apart, how he owes the customer a rental car for the weekend...

This thread is par for the course...the OP is always wrong and has no case. And you guys wouldn't offer a defense argument if it was on the tip of your tongue.

You are generalizing and just being tedious...not new.

We don't know what the shop did or didn't do and you are now wildly speculating about the situation and how we'd respond. As for this thread being "par for the course", well, it is in that we get incomplete information from the OP provide what we can and then you enter the picture and ass nothing to the thread except your particular brand of squawking clamor.

[Harold99]

Here we are again, Harold. It's your show.

It is not uncommon or actionable (not a "legal term") to begin work before all parts in in possession in either a mechanic's shop or in construction. While delays in parts can cause other issues waiting on parts may also cause delays. A mechanic telling you that the car will be done on date X is not binding, it's an approximation. Other issues could be discovered in the course of performing the original service leading to yet other delays.

You're right, most of these cases don't end up in a court room because there will be nowhere to go with them. As to PayrolGuy's use of language: have you considered that words mean specific things and Payrol guy has a a lexicon at his disposal that allows him to select the proper vocabulary to make his point clearly as opposed to your angst-ridden and often sloppy prose?

You are generalizing and just being tedious...not new.

We don't know what the shop did or didn't do and you are now wildly speculating about the situation and how we'd respond. As for this thread being "par for the course", well, it is in that we get incomplete information from the OP provide what we can and then you enter the picture and ass nothing to the thread except your particular brand of squawking clamor.

I post on far less than 10% of the threads here. But when I do post, I will defend my posts. Get used to it.

In the legal system prosecutors rarely agree with defense attorneys. Here, nearly everyone agrees with each other and rarely calls another out. That is why I call you guys 'The Clique' because you are all of one mind and opinion. You guys (with the past help of KIA) have run all defense minded members off this site. Furthermore, when is the last time you told someone like cbg to shut the 'F' up after her nasty and unwarranted post?