Disputed bill

[skier-hughes]

Graham - if a builder has given me a quotation for a job, and I then write to him, offering him the work at the quoted price, doesn't that constitute a legal agreement that he will stick to the price (provided the spec remains unchanged)?

I accept that he cannot be compelled to do the work, but assuming that he does come and do it, isn't he constrained to carry it out at the agreed price?

Yes this is true, I'm not arguing against this.

BUT

The quotation is not the engagement of work, the contract is your letter to him, which includes items, and the quotation.

Let's try to clear this up.

A quotation is a fixed price for work that is detailed in that quotation to be done.

A contract needs to be entered into to get the work in the quotation done.


The contract may be that you want the work started by a certain date and that it must be finished by another date etc, whereas the quotation may just say that the work includes 5 days labour.
You wouldn't be to happy if he came once a month and completed a weeks job in 5 months, but if you don't set out the times in the contract then he isn't breaking any contract..... his quote says 5 days work and he has completed 5 days work.

Far fetched, but just trying to show the difference between the quote and a contract.

 

[BMcD]

Further to my above post, if you are taken to court and loose you do not automatically get a County Court Judgement (CCJ) against you. If however you loose and you default on your payments then the claimant (builder) can reapply to the courts to recover the full sum. This is when the CCJ is awarded against you.

I feel I ought to point out that I am not a lawyer nor have I had any legal training and it would be advisable to seek proper legal advice if you find yourself going down the court route.

 

[Willmat]

from long departed legal employment, a contract is two parts - offer and acceptance. The quotation is nothing more than an offer until "accepted".

Whether this is a formal contract i.e. written agreement restating all matters or simply verbal (or scrawled on the quotation "I accept"), is as explained by others simply more persuasive. No doubt good building practice means you have a formal contract, but often on smaller jobs this will not happen. Hence you say "fine" or you scrawl "I accept" on a quotation. The acceptance turns it into the contract.

Similarly as Penners said if you write to the contractor offering the work at the quoted price, you cannot compel the person. It is not an agreement until accepted but if he turns up and starts work thats good enough and unless he varies the terms this will be the contract.

It depends on what the quotation says, but if it covers the matter generally, there is no reasonableness implied later. If a builder makes a bad deal its his problem. Obviously, on other jobs he will make a "good" deal on a fixed price. Sometimes you may think of paying more, but also bear in mind how rare it is that the builder will feel honour bound to refund money on a fixed price where he finishes in a fraction of the time...

I thought that if you got a CCJ against you, it is listed. If it is paid it is listed as "CCJ satisfied". I'm sure this was the situation, unless its changed, though I could be wrong.

Disputes are best avoided and nipped in the bud early, i.e. always tailor the situation to avoid them). Court is best avoided at all costs and very very rarely should you need to go there.

As explained, if you do offer any money, make it in "full and final settlement". Also worth scrawling this on the back of any cheque (this is even binding in itself in court and sometimes used unscrupulously by simply sending a cheque in to an accounts department with the annotation on the reverse, then relied on). They have agreed to the part payment and cannot pursue the rest.

 

[Flyfisher]

As explained, if you do offer any money, make it in "full and final settlement". Also worth scrawling this on the back of any cheque (this is even binding in itself in court and sometimes used unscrupulously by simply sending a cheque in to an accounts department with the annotation on the reverse, then relied on). They have agreed to the part payment and cannot pursue the rest.

That's an interesting point. If you do find yourself on the receiving end of a 'full and final' cheque that isn't for the right amount, how do you deal with it? I think I would send it back, uncashed, with a covering letter explaining the 'mistake' - but is this adequate in a legal sense?

 

[skier-hughes]

There are several ways of dealing with it.
The one you say is fine, depending on the wording of your letter.
You could keep hold of the cheque, reply with a letter saying that the payment hasn't been met in full and that you are holding on to the cheque until full payment has been made.
You could bank the cheque, holding it in it's own account, but you must send a letter saying it's again not accepted as full payment and requesting the correct amount first.

Banking the money before replying is acceptance of the money.
Banking in a normal account where it get mixed in with other monies, is not on, as you can't then say which is the persons money.

The wording of the letter is the key thing, as words can have different meanings to different people and lawyers can make them say things you'd never even thought of :shock:

 

[Penners]

You've all made useful and interesting points. But it occurs to me that there is one further question.

We've established that, if a builder provides a quote for a job and the customer writes back accepting the quote, then a contract exists. But how is the matter of the specification handled?

In his quote, the builder will presumably give "broad-brush" details of the job (eg: brick plinth, softwood frame clad with featherboarding, pantiled roof, etc). But the job actually entails hundreds of other little details. Things like "window sill to incorporate drip groove"... "lead flashing dressed under featherboarding and over brick plinth"... and so on.

If one of these details is omitted in the build, how can one establish whether the customer could have reasonably expected it to be included?

 

[Flyfisher]

I suppose this is where standards come into their own.
New windows to be fitted in accordance with BS??? and compliant with building regs part ???, brickwork to be compliant to BS??? etc etc. Many of these things will already be specified on the architect's drawings, which can be referenced on the order and then effectively forms the specification of the contract.

 

[Penners]

Many of these things will already be specified on the architect's drawings.

If these exist! I do my own drawings, and obviously haven't the knowledge to include all specs that an architect would.

But surely even a proper, grown-up architect can't note down every last detail of a building. There must always be some point at which the builder's own knowledge and experience is relied upon.

 

[middi]

Apart from the statuary building reg, compliance, which it usually closely inspected anyway, the builder plays a massive part on the quality of the build.

The inspector, for example, or the architect for that matter. are not going to know if the builder has used dangeroulsy short nails where sliding components can fail,

Where period buildings are concerned , a builder with plenty of "noddle" is essential.

 

[skier-hughes]

Penners, if it's not written down anywhere, then you can't reasonably expect it to be included.

It is up to you to accept a quote that includes the details you want, or if you don't know then it is up to you to engage someone who does.

If it then proves to be the case that they failed in their duty of care, it is up to you to sue them, for which professionals will have indemnity insurance to cover such happenings.

Yes, often you will rely on a builder doing the right thing, but what if they thought you wanted a drip rail on your window, becaue they all do now, and you wanted a window which replicated something from a byegone age, before driprails and so no drip rail was on the drawing...... has he done the right thing?

Communication, can't do witout good communication, the builder comes to you and says, Mey mate you haven't spcified a drip rail, you say, no, because we want a window like they had in 1542, he says, ok mate, so long as you know what you are doing, I'll make it to your drawing, just thought I'd let you know...

 

[Jane Smith]

There are several ways of dealing with it.
The one you say is fine, depending on the wording of your letter.
You could keep hold of the cheque, reply with a letter saying that the payment hasn't been met in full and that you are holding on to the cheque until full payment has been made.
You could bank the cheque, holding it in it's own account, but you must send a letter saying it's again not accepted as full payment and requesting the correct amount first.

Banking the money before replying is acceptance of the money.
Banking in a normal account where it get mixed in with other monies, is not on, as you can't then say which is the persons money.

The wording of the letter is the key thing, as words can have different meanings to different people and lawyers can make them say things you'd never even thought of :shock:

We paid a builder part-payment, as full and final settlement, and told him this in the accompanying letter; he cashed our cheque but wrote to us demanding the rest of the money, which we refused to pay; he then took us to the Small Claims Court to get the rest of the bill paid, but the Judge took the view that as we'd paid him in full and final settlement and he had cashed our cheque, he could not reasonably demand any more. Just so you know.

 

[skier-hughes]

It's down to when he cashed your cheque and whether and when he told you he wasn't accepting the money in full and final settlement.

 

[Gervase]

But surely even a proper, grown-up architect can't note down every last detail of a building. There must always be some point at which the builder's own knowledge and experience is relied upon.

Not 'arf. It's a rare as rocking-horse droppings to find an architect's drawing involving an existing building from which one can reliably take measurements for such things as studwork, window positions and levels.
These days the drawing is often assigned to an office junior who can use an AutoCAD programme, and the conversion of rough figures in a notebook into a working drawing can sometimes be rather fanciful.
That said, the drawing is a useful basis on which to work. The resulting building should more properly be termed 'based on an original(ish) idea by...' rather than 'designed by...'
No offence intended to any practising architects out there, of course! Even those who are still specifying Tri-Iso Super 9 for insulation... :evil:

 

[biffvernon]

still specifying Tri-Iso Super 9 for insulation

The more 'with it' architects have moved on to specifying Tri-Iso Super 10.
:wink:

 

[Jane Smith]

It's down to when he cashed your cheque and whether and when he told you he wasn't accepting the money in full and final settlement.

Our builder wrote to us before he cashed the cheque. When the judge gave his judgement, the builder protested and said his solicitor had advised him that he'd done the right thing: the judge said that nevertheless he hadn't, by cashing the cheque he had accepted our full and final settlement, and that was that.

Apparently it's a pretty common misconception: but if you cash a cheque that's offered as a full and final, that's it. No more is due to you.

 

[skier-hughes]

There are several ways of dealing with it.
You could bank the cheque, holding it in it's own account, but you must send a letter saying it's again not accepted as full payment and requesting the correct amount first.

OK, did he do this bit?

 

[Antwerpman]

I can understand things from tbe builders point of view and I see that several people are suggesting that you meet him part way, but I wonder if the job had been considerably simpler than he originally envisaged would he have reduced the bill or took the additional profit as a bonus? I suspect the latter.

I am in the business of buying and selling precious stones, and it is difficult to determine the price exactly for any given stone, however you know that on some you will gain and some you will loose, and it is the overall outcome that matters. I see this situation as being the same, on some jobs he will win in terms of time and money and on some he will loose. But where he looses he will still gain the experience to quote better next time.

Unless I felt that morally I had an obligation to pay (ie I had hidden known defects or realised that he had missed something substantial) then I would not negotiate.

 

[skier-hughes]

A sensible answer Antwerpman

 

[Nemesis]

Our builder wrote to us before he cashed the cheque. When the judge gave his judgement, the builder protested and said his solicitor had advised him that he'd done the right thing: the judge said that nevertheless he hadn't, by cashing the cheque he had accepted our full and final settlement, and that was that.



Which just goes to show that you can't always trust the legal advice you get. Ultimately it's for the courts to decide and it's hard to alter that judgment.

 

[Penners]

the drawing is a useful basis on which to work.

Exactly - and despite Gervase's unfortunate experiences with lazy architects, I still contend that even the most conscientious architect can never include details of every last screw, joint, overlap, and so on - either in the drawing or the specification. It's just impossible.

There must come a point where the builder has to be relied upon to use good practice in order to delivery a satisfactory result. And the customer has the right to expect this from anyone who describes himself as a builder.

Wouldn't a court of law adopt that attitiude?