clear and rake the brush

[micky]

TV court show

Woman hires landscaping company to clear space bettween her house and the lake. Her lot extends to the lake. It requires dropping three 40 to

50 foot trees, cutting the wood adn putting it by her wood pile, and clearing and raking the brush.

When he's done, the area where the big trees and other growth was, that had fully obscured her view of the lake, was brown and full of twigs, sticks, things stuck in and maybe short things growing from the ground, tree stumps, atop the dirt.

She said the job wasn't done because he hadn't cleared and raked that area.

He said his form, his estimate form, referred to the lawn and lawn is only where there is grass growing.

On the basis of "lawn", who should win?

[gfretwell]

Lawn is where the grass is growing and if the contract did not specify stump grinding/removal he is probably done. As db says, you just mow that area to eat up the rest of the stuff. If she keeps mowing that whole area as part of the normal mowing contract eventually the growth will be somewhat uniform. Some of the grass in her lawn, carried by the mower will "sprig" in the weed patch and the weeds will sprig in her lawn

[trader_4]

Without pictures and reading what was actually written, there is no way to give any opinion worth even spit.

[micky]

You have a point there. (which is why I asked.)

But here, isn't the stump part of the tree. If it says remove trees, why shouldn't that include the stump?

[trader_4]

In NJ if you hire a tree service to remove a tree, it generally does not include grinding the stump. Sounds like FL is the same. If the contract/quote isn't clear on that and the homeowner wants to push it, then a judge would have to decide, factoring in that ambiguities go against the writer and whatever the normal business practice is.