Was I overcharged?

[Nanez]

You're absolutely correct.

[RBM]

Like I said, it's not a big deal, but the electrical code doesn't allow tapping that outlet to feed a range hood

[dpb]

...

Yeah, and that's one of those places where assuming the circuit isn't otherwise overloaded and the fan isn't a 3hp industrial unit NEC seems perhaps overly conservative in existing work in a cost/benefit ratio. A typical home range hood isn't much different than the mixer motor/light that would be plugged into the outlet, anyway.

New work, sure. Old work that doesn't require a much effort to run, ok. Old work that's more typical I agree w/ the "it's not a big deal" assessment (w/ the previous caveats).

But, of course, it isn't in Code so I didn't say any of the above... :)

[dpb]

...

Was going to add above that while I don't think the hourly rate is terribly out of line for NYC, that's on basis of small jobs that are more costly to the workman than are larger projects; I'd expect the hourly rate to be significantly lower for a job that was a month, say.

I'd presume this actually was done as a fixed price bid and as such would not be terribly surprised he didn't drop the bill for a small task, particularly because he probably ran into at least some complication elsewhere during the job; nothing goes entirely as planned in old work.

Also, I'd expect the effort he planned for the original hole _probably_ wasn't as big an effort as you may think; typically homeowners/diy'ers way overestimate the actual work in making structural changes. For example, they'll go to all kinds of extremes to avoid cutting a hole in sheetrock when it wouldn't take a tenth of the total time to simply make the hole and repair the wall/ceiling the way a pro would approach it. Similarly, the concept/effort of knocking a hole thru a brick wall probably wasn't any different to this guy than would have been to just cut a hole through a frame siding. A hammer and chisel and a few blows and you gots a hole... :)

[Robert Green]

And he was probably surprised you took his first offer. The bottom line here is simple contract law. You had a contract to perform certain work, part of which was not performed. When you have no contract the theory of "quantum meruit" might apply,

But you *have* a contract (I assume) and if you sued, a judge would be likely to rebate the portion of your payment that could be attributed to the work not performed. The problem is, suing is very likely to be a wash. What you gained would be eaten up in costs. I'd just approach him and say just what I've said. You agreed to pay for something that wasn't done. That means a refund of some sort is in order. If it were to go to court, you'd probably have to get a separate quote just for the work that wasn't performed so the judge would have some idea what the unperformed work is worth.

I think you made an error by not bargaining right from square one - saying $2000 is more than I expected (or was much higher than my other two quotes - which you should have gotten) and offering something lower. Carleton Sheets, the real estate mogul said his fortune was based on offering outrageously low prices on houses that buyers, to his surpise, ended up taking. He said other potential buyers were worried about how the seller would perceive them if they lowballed an offer so they didn't and just moved on.

Contractors often aim quite high and are surprised there's no haggling. I once quote an hourly rate to a law firm that I thought was outrageously high. A junior associate told me "they were willing to pay twice that!" So I never again lowballed my own worth and regularly lowballed everyone else's. It's just the capitalistic way. By cheap, sell dear. Once you've established you're too polite to haggle, don't expect your contractor to offer a rebate without you asking for one. In legal terms, you're entitled to money back, as I understand your contract, because you paid for work not performed.

At this stage I would simply say, listen, I paid what you asked but you didn't do what you promised you would. I would appreciate an adjustment in the final price, especially since I've discovered the electrical hookup may be illegal and may have to be redone by an electrician to meet code requirements, a situation that could affect his license if it is indeed against code to pull a wire from an outlet box to the hood.

FWIW, recirculating fans are not worth much compared to an outside exhaust, at least IMHO, a conclusion you could come to on your own quite soon.

-- Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

Yes, and if it isn't code, it isn't done in what courts call a "workmanlike matter" and leaves the contractor vulnerable to Anthony hiring someone else to make it code and the courts making him the original contractor pay for it. Could even cost him his license to do tile work if exceeded the bounds of his license.

-- Bobby G.

[RicodJour]

If he didn't do something that was included in the original quote, you shouldn't pay him for that. You should have negotiated how much the left out part was worth, and deducted it. A hole in brick on the first floor over a driveway is a bit, a hole in brick on the third floor over a sidewalk is a much bigger bit. His idea of what it's worth will vary from yours, and you try to meet somewhere in the middle so both people are right at the mildly happy/unhappy line.

When you say done and over it is still not clear whether you already paid him. If so, then that was your mistake - not what the guy originally quoted you...but that was also a mistake in that you thought it was high and let it slide. The time to negotiate a change in price is always as soon as possible. The time to question a If you leave it to the end, he's already mentally spending the money and it'll be harder. If there are costs or savings that are not yet determined

[Robert Green]

The hours spent are irrelevant. The OP did not ask about a time and materials accounting. He's trying to reverse engineer the pricing of lump sum work after it's done. The work got done - beautifully - so it's extremely unlikely that the contractor broke in and did the work while the OP was away. The OP agreed to the price that he thought was a little bit high, and now that the work is done, he's trying to squeeze the contractor. I am not convinced that the OP has enough wherewithal in the home improvement experience bank to make a determination of what constitutes 'beautiful' work, but that's another issue.

As far as NYC pricing, I had a buddy that had a wood closet door installed in an existing metal jamb, and he provided the hardware. The contractor picked up a used door and installed it in a morning and charged $900. He paid it, and I think he was nuts, but people charge what they can get.

The OP's post starts off with a misleading subject line - "Was I overcharged?" No. No he wasn't overcharged. There's no set price for what was done. The OP got a number from a contractor, gave the go ahead (admittedly with some reservations), and the work was done beautifully. What's his beef? That the contractor didn't stretch it out to three or four days to make it seem like he was getting his money's worth? Sheesh. If the OP wants a Buyer's Protection policy, he should try eBay.

=================================================

It's really simple. He had a specific contract to have worked performed that wasn't performed. Would you be happy if you bought a car to find out that the seller removed the seats before turning the car over to you? Have you ever worked at a job where you got paid for 5 days while deciding to only work 4? This is a simple case of the terms of the contract not being fulfilled (at least as I understand it) because a substantial and difficult portion of the work was not performed, it was not performed legally or to code and the recirculating solution is far inferior to a outside exhaust system that he contracted for. Three strikes.

+A judge could even order the first contractor to pay another, licensed contractor (and electrician) to rip out the non-complying work and repair to it code in a "workman-like" manner. I'd say this contractor has some serious legal exposure even if he did "wonderful work." If the underlying electrical work was illegally performed and not to code, the OP is in the driver's seat, legally speaking.

Judges are very loathe to accept "set offs" as in "I did more work than the contract required" because they are not part of the contract. You can't bind someone else to paying for work they didn't agree that you do (except under very rare cirumstances like the delivery of emergency medical care when you're dying). You can't claim unagreed-to setoffs in court. The proper course of action is to get a job change order. A written, 'agreed to by both parties' job change order.

I'd be in small claims court in a heartbeat if the contractor didn't make a reasonable rebate. Just like I'd sue someone who sold me a car and then yanked the seats on delivery. Contract = a promise on both sides to adhere to terms written into the agreement. The OP fulfilled his, the contractor didn't. As open and shut a case as you can find unless the OP agreed in writing to the change. Most contractors hate to hear that, but that's contract law.

-- Bobby G.

[RicodJour]

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Does contract law only listen to one party and then make a ruling?

Didn't think so. But that's exactly what you're doing. I'm telling the OP to grow some balls - they are essential when dealing with contractors. It might not help so much on this project, but it will stand him in good stead down the road.

I don't know if you've ever been in small claims court in NYC, but on Long Island, well, let's say it's not exactly a speedy process. The OP would have to pay for filing, serving, take a day off from work, if there's a delay, take another day off...it rarely pays unless you're talking more serious money or if someone doesn't value their time highly. In this instance, what's the difference? A couple or few hundred? It's borderline at best.

I'm not going to tell the OP what to do, as I don't know what happened

- just his version and he's admittedly unedumacated so it's entirely possible that he got a great price and a great job and just doesn't know it. There may have been changes (you ever seen a job that had no changes or surprises?) or conditions that entirely prevented the through wall vent.

If there's a material change to the originally quoted price/work, then the new number should be negotiated as soon as the cost changes are known. If the OP just blithely paid the contractor without asking about why there wasn't a price reduction since some work wasn't done, then that's getting into the beyond believable category.

There's always more to a story than the one party posts on a newsgroup.

R

[clare]

Licenced what kind of contractor? A licenced plumber or concrete contactor is not a licenced electrician. Some licenced renovators MAY be cross-discipline licenced - for example being a plumber/gasfitter/electrician - but VERY few.

[dpb]

...

...

OK, so now we got the usenet lawyers going... :)

Assuming for a moment the OP might even halfway consider such an action, assuming the facts are indeed as presented and there's not some unknown relief owing to particular circumstances, the original contractor always has the option to make "corrective relief". I don't believe the OP has unlimited right to expect restitution for a 3rd party unless he's had no satisfaction from the first dude first...

[clare]

Or about 7 minutes with a roto-hammer and a core drill..

Ive seen many run 6" ducts to a reducer and a 4" vent cap. Broan 88000 calls for 6" round or 3X10 rectangular Most of their other products DO call for 7" or 3 1/2X10. The Nutone RL6200 series only calls for a 5". So there ARE options for situations where a 7" or 3 /2X10 are not possible.

[RicodJour]

If you were a salesman your family would be starving. It's okay to hope for something, but you _have_ to ask for it if it's not offered and you're entitled. It works that way everywhere. Airlines, hotels, everywhere. You have to have the information and ask for a specific thing.

This is a really obnoxious question, but hey, it's Usenet - how old are you? I'm not trying to be insulting, but I'm getting the notion that you haven't taken too many laps around the race course yet. Is this your first home? Like I said, obnoxious question, but stick around and grow some skin and the people here will keep you FOREwarned so these situations don't crop up again.

The hole isn't the issue - almost never is. It's what's around the hole that makes it or breaks it. We don't know if the OP even _owns_ the place. It might be a condo or coop, it might be on the first floor or the fifteenth. It's NYC and we know nothing.

In a best case scenario cutting the hole would take about 25% of the time for the entire task (other parts being setup, cleanup, etc. Worst case scenario cutting the hole might be Broan 88000 calls for 6" round or 3X10 rectangular =A0Most of their

And...we know nothing about the OP's particular situation and job constraints. Woulda, coulda, shoulda.

R

[Larry W]

It may be customary in some areas for some contractors to charge labor time for travel hours, and if they don't do so explicitly, they will build that cost into their overall pricing. On the other hand, most workers don't get paid for their commuting time and I think this is the perspective most consumers have.

[Robert Green]

Let me be clear, I am not a lawyer and I am not offering legal advice. (-: I'm just describing what I've seen in the many years I've worked with lawyers in a support capacity in addition to my own personal experience with lawsuits of this nature.

Where did you ever get that idea? You must be a contractor! (-: There are plenty of situations where that's just not true.

You believe wrong. If the first contractor did the job in an "unworkman-like" manner (and that can be proved to the judge), the courts will almost never force the plaintiff to reuse that original contractor to correct the work because he's demonstrated his incompetence. A report from a NYC housing inspector regarding the outlet and licensing issue would be all it took to end that contractor's right to any "corrective relief." The OP could come by that with a phone call and perhaps a copying fee.

Think about it. Would YOU want an obvious incompetent back to finish or rework the job? I know this surprises and disturbs many contractors when they learn that in some situations, they will be both unable to correct their mistakes and in fact have to pay for whatever they did that another contractor will have to undo or repair. Seen it a dozen times or more. I'll look up the cites if you insist, but it's pretty standard stuff that is really common sense.

In this case, if the contractor needed an electrical license to perform the work but did it without one, it's game over, dude and a lawsuit could be the least of his professional problems. If all the tile needs to be pulled and redone to bring it up to code, who do you think *should* pay for it? The homeowner or the guy who made the mistake in the first place? If you do work you're not competent to perform, no court will order a homeowner to "give him another chance."

If the wiring problem is indeed not up to code, and the contractor had no license or right to be doing electrical work, he does NOT get a second bite of the apple. Plain and simple. He has already demonstrated his incompetence and disregard for the law. Courts also realize that once a contractor is sued, the relationship between the two has soured pretty seriously. I *know* guys in the trade just HATE to hear this, but that's how things work. Why is this so? Because there are plenty of fly-by-nighters who think they are more competent than they actually are.

For some reason I assume you're a licensed sparky, DPB. Even if you're not, let's assume you are. Is it fair that some guy who bypasses what you had to go through to get your license is taking work away from you illegally? The courts don't think it's fair because they are part of the system that licenses professionals in the first place. It's likely that the lack of license alone will sink the contractor's case.

The time, as you suggest, to try again to make it right is BEFORE you're dragged into court. Failure to settle with the plaintiff before you reach court indicates that the two parties cannot get along. Judges know better than to expect two people who now probably hate each other and couldn't settle this between themselves outside of court to work it out because a judge ordered it so.

What happens then? The contractor, if found liable, pays to make it right with the plaintiff being able to hire a licensed contractor of his choice to rip out and redo the work (at reasonable rates, of course). Lots of contractors don't know how frequently they expose themselves to this sort of situation.

The contractor in this case appears to owe the return of monies paid for work not performed. Very simple. People can imagine all sorts of set-offs like travel time, extra work performed not specified, etc. but the written contract always controls. Some people may think because he paid the bill the OP has no options. That's not true, either. It could be easily argued that puts him in a better place because he did not resort to legal self-help. It's always better to pay in full and sue than to hold back money and be sued. The former indicates that money is not the object, but the quality of the work is.

Believing in the right to "correct relief" is about as common as the guy who hits your car and then expects you to go to his brother's "Body Shop and Tattoo Parlor" to fix it. No court will ever demand an accident victim use the defendant's family or friends to do the work "on the cheap." It just doesn't work that way.

It's why properly written contracts and job change orders are so important. Yet amazingly they are so overlooked - until a lawsuit where everyone learns what they *should* have done. Do a poor enough job and you not only don't get paid, you may get to contribute more than the job was worth to set things right.

God help the contractor who has NO contract and is subect to "quantum meruit" where the judge gets to decide what is a fair amount. Lots of judges have no contracting experience to speak of, and having them "write" the contract ex post facto is never good for the contractor. Not only does the contractor appear like an idiot for not having a contract in the first place, the contractor has to prove every cent and second he spent on the job and will not get paid for anything he can't prove. That's almost always a loss for the contractor, whom the judge is probably eager to teach a lesson by lowballing him.

quantum meruit defined:

[Robert Green]

In some places A/C contractors are allowed to do limited electrical work, but cross-disciplined contractors are rare as you point out.

-- Bobby G.

[Robert Green]

wrote

non-performance.

All good points to consider. NYC still uses BX so they are still a little paranoid about electrical fires in buildings that could spread to an entire block of rowhouses. I assume they are equally wary of non-licensed electricians doing electrical hook-ups. The OP would have to get a ruling from the AHJ as to whether the work was legal. Since it doesn't sound as if it was inspected before it was sealed up, my guess is it would be flunked for that alone. But it's just a guess. I left NYC in 1970. Only the AHJ knows for sure. The problem is once you alert them, you can end up on a forced path of redoing the work.

My neighbor had an entire unpermitted sunroom added to the back of her house. I told her Google's gonna get you sooner or later and you may have to take the whole thing down. They used an enormous amount of concrete for the foundation and attached the addition to the brick wall of the back of the house (her sister works for a concrete contractor so they got a deal). Both our houses are built over some pre-existing springs. As you might imagine, as the foundation settles, and it's settling pretty seriously, it's pulling the back of the house down with it. The addition may self-destruct long before the inspectors find it. She enjoys the heck out of it though, so it may be worth it to her in the long run.

Still, as the old saying goes "you can't fight city hall (or gravity!)."

-- Bobby G.