ought that the contractor
son I have been saying that
I believe that you are missing my point. No problem, I'll try to explain it differently.
In my previous post I said "I never thought that the contractor (purposely) injected adhesive under the adjacent tiles."
Note the word (purposely). That is key to my point. Here is how I imagine i t went down:
The contract covered a specific number of tiles that either needed to be completely re-set (as in either re-glued or replaced with spares)as well as a specific number of tiles that were to be fixed via the injection of adhesiv e. I believe that that understanding of the situation fits the OP's words "the y injected adhesive between some other tiles to make sure that they didn't co me up." The "completely re-set" and "contracted-for adhesive-injected" tiles would be covered by the warranty. No problem there.
Now, in the process of injecting adhesive under the contracted-for tiles, t he contractor also injected adhesive under near-by/adjacent tiles, let's sa y by accident. In any case, those are not the same "some other tiles" that had adhesive injected as part of the contract, therefore the contractor is claiming that he is not responsible for the damage to them.
In other words, let's say the contract says: "The 6 tiles in the 2nd row fr om the south wall will have adhesive injected under them." The next morning , the 6 tiles in the *1st* row from the wall all pop up. Since they were no t covered by the contract and (supposedly) no adhesive was injected under t hem, the contractor would (supposedly) not be responsible nor would they be covered by the warranty.
Granted, I don't know if a clause like that would stand up in court. It alm ost gives the contractor carte blanche to *cause* damage to "near by tiles" to get more work. At a minimum, would he really not be responsible if he d ropped a hammer on the way into the house and cracked a tile that was 20' f rom the actual job site? I would hope that that would not be the case.
ct exclusion would protect the contractor from being responsible for damage to nearby tiles. Now, I don't necessarily feel that the "protection" claus e is >valid and that's the part I think that he should be fighting.
Absolutely. Can you imagine a contractor that comes to your house to instal l a window on the second floor with a contract that includes a clause that says "I'll warranty the new window for 2 years but I'm not responsible for damag e to any other windows." As he is putting his ladder up, he puts it through your $10K bay window with the liquid crystal Switchable Privacy Glass. "Whoops, sorry, not covered. Says so in the contract. Hey look, I'm a nice guy so I'll repair it for $5K."