What to do with poor quality cabinets

[J. Clarke]

You seem to be envisioning the guy setting up a cabinet shop in your driveway and building the cabinets in place.

[clare]

OP did not say the hardware was at different levels on the doors - simply that they did not line up. Also said the reveals were all odf, etc etc. A perfectly square set of cabinets installed off square will have all of those symptoms - along with veneer tearouts at joints etc if they are built of MDF or chip-board covered with veneer.

IF the OP installed them himself, or had a "blacksmith" put them in (nothing against blacksmiths when they are working with iron and a forge, but keep them away from my cabinetry unless they are also cabinet-makers) a perfectly good set of cabinets can be converted to a dumpsterload od course sawdust in a matter of an hour or two.

[trader4]

Neither you nor I are there to actually see the problems. Many of them sound to me like they are more likely the result of poor cabinets, rather than installation:

"poorly mortised hinges (sloppy and hinges are not flush with the wood), handles not at the same height, gaps in joints, warped doors, damage in the finish, wobbly and crooked drawers,"

Who, for example is more likely to have mortised the hinges? The cabinet maker or the installer? And by handles not at the same height, I gave him the benefit of the doubt that he doesn't mean the cabinets themselves were hung at random heights. But in any case, there is clearly enough there that it could be the cabinets that are defective.

You on the other hand are jumping to totally unsupported conclusions:

"If you installed them or a general laborer installed them rather than the cabinetmaker I'm afraid you will not have a leg to stand on. If the cabinetmaker supplied the installation crew you have recourse."

That is just plain wrong. If he has defects that are due to the way they were built, then he has a case and there is no requirement that the company who built the cabinets install them. For all you know, he could have pictures that he took of the defective cabinets sitting there BEFORE they were installed. Or a bus load of nuns could have been there to witness what they looked like when they were delivered.

If he wants to purse it, it's up to a judge to decide who's right and who's wrong. He could prevail in his case that the cabinets are defective in a number of ways.

[Swingman]

Keep in mind this was crossposted to the wRec, where there is no shortage of the ill informed giving sight unseen, purely conjectural advice on issues with which they have no experience whatsoever.

[Lee Michaels]

"Swingman" wrote

Are you talking about cabinets or the GOP primaries? ;-)

[Swingman]

You left out religion ... ;)

[trader4]

Look, let's take this in context. Another poster, Clare, claimed that only if the cabinet company who made the cabinets installed them does the OP have recourse. In response to that I said that if the cabinets are defective, then the cabinets are defective regardless of who installed them. Meaning if they were defective before being installed, then the OP had a legitimate claim against the cabinet supplier. Now if they were installed by someone else, I agree that complicates the case.

No contradiction at all. I never said all the alleged defects were or were not the fault of who made them. Only that just because someone other than the company who made them installed them does not mean the OP has no recourse, which was what Clare stated.

"handles not at the same height"

nitpicking now are we?

He stated:

"poorly mortised hinges (sloppy and hinges are not flush with the wood), "

more nitpicking

And tell us how the above and warped kitchen cabinet doors are usually the result of installation. In my world, they are usually the result of how they were made.

It's not a could. To prevail in court it's a fact that you don't need to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

So, why are you jumping all over me and nitpicking apart minor differences in words?

Only if the lawyer agrees to do that for free and you better determine that upfront.

And that of course is pure BS. There are plenty of people who get surprised by lawyers bills, just as they get surprised by mechanics or tradesmen. In the case of lawyers, it can be even worse because they frequently bill by the hour. Are you there to watch how long that phone call really took? Or if it was necessary? Or how long he spent reviewing the documents you gave him? Good grief. There are plenty of lawyers that pad bills, run the clock and there are some that are outright crooks.

I'll give you one recent small example. A friend had a closing on a house. He called up several lawyers and got quotes. The one he selected quoted $1100 for her services. Half way through the process in the course of a discussion, she said "My paralegal is drawing up that... BTW, you're paying extra for her time." Now that is a good example of how a lawyer can screw you. You'd expect to pay for title work, FedEx, etc. But the paralegal that is doing the work you already paid an attorney for? Totally unethical.

[trader4]

No problem, sounds like we are on the same page.

The burden of proof to prevail is NOT beyond reasonable doubt for a civil case. It's by a preponderance of the evidence, ie tipping the scales in your favor, which is a much lower standard than the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of criminal court.

Yes, but the only likely way it would be discussed would be if the lawyer brings it up. Not many clients are going to think to ask if they are going to pay for paralegal work on a real estate closing seperately from the $1100 flat fee the lawyer is quoting. I've done many closing using a lawyer and I would not have thought to ask that. But I've also never had it happen to me. My friend let her get away with it without objecting. You probably would have said, WTF are you talking about? So would I.

Funny conclusion though. Might as well tell you more of the story. This closing was scheduled for a particular day and it didn't occur because Chase also screwed my friend by insisting at the last minute that he put up 30% down instead of 20%. He had a sales contract with the standard contingency that said he was to apply for a mortgage of X amount with 20% down. So he's scrambling to figure out how to come up with more money. And I'm telling him, you don't have to. You fulfilled your part of the contract and if you've been denied the mortgage that the contract spelled out, you can go look for another mortgage or you can call it quits. Remarkably, the lawyer now had him dealing with the paralegal and she is telling him a different story, that he has to go through with it, accept the different mortgage terms or he could lose his deposit. What pure BS.

Finally, with me feeding him questions and getting the lawyer on the phone they agreed with my position. And for this he was paying $1100? Like who's side is this stupid lawyer on?

So, it took a few more weeks, but he got another mortgage with a local bank with just the 20% down. And he closed on the house. Almost a year later he's asking me what my water bills are and why he owes the town over $1000 in water bills. So, we do some digging and find out what happened. About $700 of the bill was for the 3 week period between the 1st closing that was scheduled and the one that actually ocurred. The half-assed lawyer and her dopey paralegal had called the town for the water bill for the first closing. They never called again for the updated numbers for the actual closing. The folks that owned the house watered the hell out of the lawn every day and had a pool. So, they managed to use $700 worth of water in those few weeks.

It took months, but finally one day a check for $700 showed up from the lawyer. I suspect it came out of her own pocket because the sellers had moved out of state and I kind of doubt they sent her the money. At the very least it created a headache for her, which made me feel better.

Yes, I agree. The reason I brought up being careful with the lawyer fees upfront was the experience the OP already had in buying cabinets.

[Hot-Text]

I can.......

[m II]

I doubt a jury will decide in a small civil suit.

[trader4]

It doesn't matter whether it's a jury or a judge. The standard of preponderance of the evidence applies in either case.

[J. Clarke]

Well remind me never to order cabinets from *you*.