Had shed built but contractor didn't get permit -- now needs to be moved.

Page 2 of 3  
snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote the following:

In many jurisdictions, a permit is required for any building or fence to be installed on the property. There are setbacks and size limits on each building or fence. According to the the OP, the contractor was well aware of the need for, and requirements of a permit, and never checked if the OP had acquired the permit..
--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

No, that's not what was said. The "boilerplate" contract stated any required permits were the responsibility of the property owner. That contract would be used for a fence, pool, addition, window replacement, roof replacement, etc. Doesn't meen a permit was required, or the contractor knew a permit was required.
Even when permits are NOT required, minimum setbacks, fence heights, etc are still mandated by bylaws which must be adhered to. These same bylaws determine if a permit is required by the size and construction of the shed, etc., being proposed.
It is the OWNERS responsibility to know about easements existant on the property and to avoid impinging on them.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

a
the
that
in
them.
original
the
Further,
OP
for
Could
getting
them.
If
easy
that the

being
Of
Precisely. There's a difference between asking a contractor to do something clearly illegal, like bypassing an electric meter and something that might not even require a permit, like erecting a shed. The builder is not a title company and has specifically excluded his liability for pulling any required permits. While the builder might indeed move the shed for free or for a small fee in response to a complaint to the licensing board, I can't see the owner prevailing in court for the reasons you've mentioned. I don't even really see any licensing board compelling the contractor to move the shed because of the contract the homeowner signed. The contractor merely has to complete the job in a workmanlike fashion that conforms to common industry practice to cover his butt.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jul 1, 9:29 pm, snipped-for-privacy@snyder.on.ca wrote:

A permit is required here in rural NJ, hardly a big city. It's also unclear exactly what he means by easement. He says they placed it only 4 ft from a fence and that an "easement" requires 10 ft. Sounds to me more like the municipality requires it be setback min 10ft from the property line, which is not unusual. I agree that if it is truly an easement issue unique to that property then the contractor would not know about it.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Are you really a moron, or do you just play one on the internet?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Carmen wrote:

Well, the above is what I learned in law school.
Would you care to share with us what you gleaned from the back of a Cherrios box?
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You better get your money back. It's up to the homeowner to _know_ what their obligations are. Ignorance of the law is _no_ excuse. Basic 101 law.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's true. Had the contract been silent with no mention of permit responsibility the homeowner might have had a leg to stand on, but the fact that he's aware that permits were his responsibility is a big mountain to climb. A judge is likely to say "Why didn't you ask the contractor what that meant before signing it?" I think it's actually lucky that the OP ran into this issue on such a small matter. He'll be a LOT more careful in the future when he signs a contract and that's a good thing.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Had to LOL at your response. If you indeed took a 50 cent class in law, one of the first things you would've learned is; the contract _IS LIMITED_ to the 4 corners of the paper it is written on.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Carmen wrote:

Yep. But there are two contracts going on here. The first party says "I'll perform so-and-so and I'll give you a piece of paper to memorialize it." Subsequently when the 1st party proffers a piece of paper at variance with his original promise, the first contract is voided. Now we have a new contract which, as you said, is governed by the four corners. If the 2nd party is still under the impression that it's the first promise simply put down in writing - and he can prove it - there is no contract.
There are dozens of other ambiguities that can void a contract. For example, unless the initial contract says "Buyer is responsible for the stuff on pages two through 12" anything past the first page may be thrown out. If the contract is at variance with the law or social norms, such as "six one-hour sex activities in lieu of a down-payment," the contract is voidable. If the contract is written in a language that one party does not know, and that party relies on the word of the other party, the contract can be voided.
Common these days is litigation involving cell phones. Does the statement: "Sign up for a 3-year contract and get a phone absolutely free" include the $30 sales tax on the phone? (It does). "One year contract" in bold letters on the front - "automatically renewed for two more years" on the back in fine print gets thrown out.
Again, where the bargaining power of the two parties is grossly unequal, the courts are usually quite sympathetic to the underdog.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There's no relevance to _THIS_ contract. LMAO!!! There's something seriously wrong with you.

Bzzzzz...Wrong!
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

memorialize
thrown
as
I suspect what he's thinking about are contracts where there is no benefit to one party as in "I give you my house and get nothing in return."
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As I said previously the big unknown here is exactly what the contract says regarding permits and that is key. For example I have seen contractors give out quotes where it says it's the responsibility of the homeowner to PAY for permits. Meaning the way they work it the contractor gets the permits, but the homeowner pays for them. And certainly plenty of contracts have been written with poor wording that can be ambiguos. Without knowing what the contract in question says, no one here can know for sure what exactly it does or does not say.
And in line with what you say, if the contract has any ambiguity, the judicial resolution favors the party that did not write it and is not the professional in the field.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Dude, where did you learn such crazy things? A written contract causes any preceding oral agreement to die an instant death unless its terms are incorporated in writing. Courts could not function if litigants were allowed to claim all sorts of oral addenda or previous oral contracts. Carmen is correct in saying that the writing supercedes all that and only written modifications either made to that contract or clearly added to it and agreed by both sides are enforceable in court. The "four corners" rule. Oral representations are almost universally totally meaningless in real estate cases. Only writings are considered.

example,
Gack!!!!!! The beat-down of years of American jurisprudence goes on. Why do you think contracts are page numbered "page 1 of 10?" To prevent fraudulent additions or modifications. That's why lawyers advise clients to initial or even sign every page, and especially if there are modifications that benefit them.

one-hour
Typically the illegal sections are labeled unenforceable, but if properly worded, all other provisions stand. That's severability. If the entire contract is contrary to public policy, it can be voided.
A contract may be voided if performance becomes impossible as in roofing a building that just burned down. But if the job is more difficult that foreseen (our vent hole case) that's tough luck and does not void the contract.

that
Funny how all the Hispanic homebuyers aren't able to use HeyBub's law to escape their responsibilities.
There are definite legal situations where a contract can be voided. One is if you've entered into a contract with a minor. It it usually their option to either perform or void the contract.
Lack of mental capacity can void a contract if it can be shown the signer lacked the faculties to understand what he was signing.
If there are mistakes in the contract made by both parties, the contract can be voided, but usually not if only one side errs.
Fraud can void a contract. If you're LifeLock and tell customers their data is stored on a secure, encrypted server and that's not true, that's fraud and they can get their money back and sue for any consequential damages arising from the misrepresentation.

the
Nonsense. Partly because no phone contract that I know of allows signers to go to court in the first place. They are restricted to binding arbitration. Your "free phone" example doesn't exist, AFAIK, because phone companies put the buyer on notice that they are responsible for paying all applicable sales taxes. Those contracts also typically state that any change to the service for any reason resets the contract expiration date. It's a rotten, stinking way to do business, but it's far more legal than the voter disenfranchisements you so often claim are legal.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/automatic-renewal-clause /
I think you're confused about something: the difference between an unenforceable clause and an entirely voided contract. The only time in recent history I can recall a law saying "if any part of this law is challenged successfully, the entire law becomes void" is the NYS gay marriage law. It was including to prevent gay rights activists from chipping away at the law by challenging various portions they don't like. It also appears in wills - anyone challenging this will is automatically disinherited. Both provisions serve to protect the integrity of the law or will at stake.
Most contracts have a severability clause, meaning even if one clause is deemed invalid, the rest still stands.
http://www.expertlaw.com/library/business/contract_clauses.html
<<If any provision of this Contract is held unenforceable, then such provision will be modified to reflect the parties' intention. All remaining provisions of this Contract shall remain in full force and effect.>>
Contract voiding only occurs within very specific circumstances that I outlined above, plus a few more.

the
Again, see the mortgage crisis to determine how little courts feel about the little guy. See the recent SCOTUS rulings that have favored Big Busines needs over those of workers and customers.
-- Bobby G.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
The last time I got a permit, they didn't care about easements. They only cared about the permit fee (and pretended they cared about code inspections, but I have my doubts).
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
In article

Twin sons of different mothers (g).
--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Sure, but the permit is only needed so the tax assessors can do their job.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And so that the code inspectors (if required) can check your work.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

An 8'x8' metal shed needs to be inspected? Riiiigggggtttt.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And an 8x8 shed without a temporary foundation will impact a tax assessment? Riiigggggtttt.
Add pictures here
✖
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.