Disputed bill

[Nemesis]

You would hope so - but I have a cousin whose experience of what he thought a watertight case against rubbish builders cost him very dearly.

Of course legal advice said he had a watertight case... they even said that about the appeal...

But the legal bods got paid anyhow.

 

[Willmat]

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.

This is a good example of why best to seek to avoid legal disputes, even if you think you may be right, or even if you have been advised you are right as in the other example mentioned about poor advice received from solicitors.

As Jane says, cashing a full and final settlement cheque is basically final, more so if the covering letter is very clearly worded and indeed the cheque marked "full and final settlement". You can purport to have a segregrated account or purport to counter offer by saying you're cashing the cheque but want the rest but basically you're stuffed, whatever flexibility a court has. It is slightly better than just cashing the cheque without disputing it, then trying to claim, but not much.

In terms of receiving such a cheque which you do not want to accept, it is best to either return it as suggested and/or communicate why you are not accepting it. They is often pressure you can apply in your favour - in a company, go more senior and waste so much management time they want you to go away, or with contractors, tell them you will be reporting them to their professional body/trading standards which is often not worth the hassle.

More importantly though, know when you're also wrong!

In terms of specification there should be a degree of reasonableness, as mentioned before as not everything can be mentioned. Some things can clearly be implied, although not explicitly specified (e.g. lay floorboards - imply using screws/nails, lay tiles - imply tile adhesive etc.) but there is also clearly a degree of reasonableness. These are both fine from a legal point of view. Some things will clearly be outside the specification and are variations - a good builder/architect should bring these up as they occur so they are agreed in advance/at the time so they are not left all until the end - when a dispute may well occur. The problem will arise more for grey areas and in the absence of agreement, the only result would be for a judge/arbitrator (depending on the contract) to decide which is not really in either parties interest as nothing is certain.

Worth bearing in mind that in the fast track/small claims, you cannot claim legal expenses for advice from a solicitor or using a solicitor. again, seriously try to ever get to the point of having a dispute and know what position you're in and what steps you should take to prevent a situation deteriorating! I know it doesn't always work and the problems my friends and family get themselves into, does make you wonder if they are actively looking for trouble! the best being recently someone I know not being paid for a job, so going round and smashing the client's glazed shopfront, then being arrested, but still believing he should be paid his money so commencing a claim on the advice of his "lawyer" girlfriend!