# Check marked "Paid in full"



## RandyB1986 (Jan 2, 2009)

CarpenterSFO said:


> A little - but why did you write a contract for 50 squares? And the answer can't be, "Because he asked me to." That's the sticking point for me, when it comes to your situation.
> 
> Edit: I had the benefit of being good friends with a budding con artist, early in life. He stole from everyone - strangers, friends, family, family employees - without compunction. His favorite opening line, was "Can you do me a favor?", and the favor would be some minor step out of the normal way of things. Now, when a prospective customer uses that line, or asks me to do anything unusual at all, I think of Chris and the warning bells go off. And there is no outsmarting those guys - they are smart and have thought of every contingency. Play it straight, say no thanks, I just have my regular way of doing things, and they'll go away.



He was the builder, not me. If I price his work per square and sheet......why should I care? I have many builders I work for that I don't price every house they have for me to roof...they know what we charge per square and they know a 1500 square foot ranch dont cost as much as a 4000 square foot cut up home. The reason he said he wanted a 50 square price was so he could compare it to his other estimates, which he had them bid at 50 squares as well. I explained it to him that final bill would be based on total amount used. Sent him email and in contract.....what more could I have really done?

Regardless of how it ended up that much over....he knew it was per square and sheet and was scamming from the start. I should have known better.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

I need a new roof. I need an estimate from you.

All my other estimates are based on one (1) square. I need your 1-square price so I can compare estimates.


----------



## EthanB (Sep 28, 2011)

Let's see the letter he sent with the check. You can fuzz out his info if you want, but who cares, he's a schmuck.


----------



## CarpenterSFO (Dec 12, 2012)

RandyB1986 said:


> He was the builder, not me. If I price his work per square and sheet......why should I care? I have many builders I work for that I don't price every house they have for me to roof...they know what we charge per square and they know a 1500 square foot ranch dont cost as much as a 4000 square foot cut up home. The reason he said he wanted a 50 square price was so he could compare it to his other estimates, which he had them bid at 50 squares as well. I explained it to him that final bill would be based on total amount used. Sent him email and in contract.....what more could I have really done?
> 
> Regardless of how it ended up that much over....he knew it was per square and sheet and was scamming from the start. I should have known better.


The horse I was beating is definitely dead. I'm sorry it happened - you were obviously playing it straight, and I hope the lesson doesn't do you too much harm.

But if you really want to fight it out with the guy, you might find out somehow whether his initial materials order was for 70+ squares, which would indicate that he knew what the situation was.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

RandyB1986 said:


> He was the builder, not me. If I price his work per square and sheet......why should I care? I have many builders I work for that I don't price every house they have for me to roof...they know what we charge per square and they know a 1500 square foot ranch dont cost as much as a 4000 square foot cut up home. The reason he said he wanted a 50 square price was so he could compare it to his other estimates, which he had them bid at 50 squares as well. I explained it to him that final bill would be based on total amount used. Sent him email and in contract.....what more could I have really done?
> 
> Regardless of how it ended up that much over....he knew it was per square and sheet and was scamming from the start. I should have known better.


Was that in a contract? Did he sign and agree to it?


----------



## Inner10 (Mar 12, 2009)

Californiadecks said:


> Was that in a contract? Did he sign and agree to it?


What's a contract?


----------



## RandyB1986 (Jan 2, 2009)

CarpenterSFO said:


> The horse I was beating is definitely dead. I'm sorry it happened - you were obviously playing it straight, and I hope the lesson doesn't do you too much harm.
> 
> But if you really want to fight it out with the guy, you might find out somehow whether his initial materials order was for 70+ squares, which would indicate that he knew what the situation was.


His initial order was 62 square total....that is why I questioned him the first night when he said he needed the bid on 50 square, because he had 62 in driveway. His super went back and bought 10 square and 75 more sheets of decking...and I have that proof as well as the Eagle View size that says 72. This house was more than roof. We tore off all decking, built up rafters 1 1/2" with 2x4 sleepers and re-decked. The dumbass built his home with 2x12 rafters and used 12" insulation, no baffles...in cathedral ceilings, rotted all decking.



Californiadecks said:


> Was that in a contract? Did he sign and agree to it?


Yes, but when I accepted the check marked paid in full, his check became the new contract upon my signature, unless I return that amount within 90 days and sue in regular court.

My first attorney told me to mark out memo that said paid in full and put disputed and to put received under protest without prejudice before signature on back. Then he went to file small claims and it got tossed out.

I then hired a different attorney who called me back after accepting retainer and told me I needed to return all funds I have accepted and sue for entire amount. I still can't collect attorney fees, other than lien costs. SO I would be returning 13K, payng an attorney 500-2000 to get 18,000.....not much return for risk, which is why he done it.

The flip side. I can still return his money, put lien on home and sue him....at which point he may decide it is going to cost him 2000-3000 in attorney fees to fight it and just pay me. He has done that in the past....his entire game is he knows common sense is to take what is offered out of fear of getting nothing. I should have just told him to keep the check and sued him....but I really wanted that check regardless of whether I cashed or returned.....to me that was proof that he willingly paid me the lesser amount which I can then show a judge to make sure I get that amount minimum.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

pcplumber said:


> In court, a contract is going to have precedence over the words on a check.
> 
> There is a laws that protect both homeowners and contractors when they are forced to do something when pressured with duress. For example, you had to pay your bills, so you accepted the check with your intention of arguing by filing in small claims court, later.
> 
> ...


You do know is illegal to remove something from a house once you have installed it. It's considered theft.


----------



## ohiohomedoctor (Dec 26, 2010)

Thats why you leave it in the front yard..


----------



## Anti-wingnut (Mar 12, 2009)

pcplumber said:


> My attorney had a special name for things people put in contracts that will not hold up in court. I can't remember what he called those things, but having them in the contract is not illegal.
> *So? Having a clause where you give me your daughter if you breach is also not illegal to have in a contract.*
> 
> I was waiting for someone to challenge both my repossession clause and my repossessing material. A high percent of contractors are going to say that it is against the law to repossess materials. It may be, but not illegal in every case. A high percent of contractors think that once materials are installed you cannot disconnect them and take them out. In a high percent of cases you have the perfect legal right to take them out. If you are installing fixtures and equipment on a new construction job and you don't get paid you can take your items out.
> ...





TNTSERVICES said:


> You do know is illegal to remove something from a house once you have installed it. It's considered theft.


PC is full of it


----------



## pcplumber (Oct 12, 2008)

TNTSERVICES said:


> You do know is illegal to remove something from a house once you have installed it. It's considered theft.


I missed you and was waiting.

I go to a customer's home and install the water heater. I ask the customer for the money and she tells me to get lost. That water heater comes out and the police have backed me up every time a customer refused to pay and it has happened many times.

My contracts have. Suppose, you are on a new construction project and you just installed 20 water heaters and the contractor doesn't pay you. Those babies are coming out if I can get them and the property owner will have a hell of a time winning in court.

My contract states that I have the right to repossess my materials when the money is not paid when due. That gives me the right, (legal or not) to snatch my materials. I've had people screaming, relatives and neighbors physically threatening me and I still remove my materials while everyone is acting like animals and the police are on their way.

I will go to a job with as much muscle as I need to get my materials. If I get my materials before the police arrive then I win. If I get onto the property and the owner wants to stop me then he had better call the police and by the time the police arrive my items are usually taken out or destroyed.

I make sure I have a copy of my contract and the police almost always side with me. I am not afraid to get arrested nor afraid to be challenged in court. I am not stupid, neither, and know where to draw the line.

You are right and wrong at the same time depending on the circumstances. If you sign a contract and refuse to pay me then that I consider that to be theft exactly the same as robbing a bank, shoplifting, etc. and that is what I tell the police.

You can pick up a water heater at a supply house and put it in your truck without paying, but you can bet that you are not going to drive away. I can deliver a water heater to your house, connect the pipes, but you can bet I am not leaving with either the money, or that water heater and I will go back for that water heater several days, weeks, or months later.

I installed a 100-gallon water heater for an apartment building very near my office and the scumbag didn't pay me. I am biding my time and I will either get my money, or I will render the water heater so they will not be able to repair nor use it. I have the code to get access to the property and I have no problem with anyone watching me either remove or render it. I installed the water heater for my actual cost that was $3,800 and didn't see one penny. You are right. That is not legal, but it makes me feel much better.


----------



## pcplumber (Oct 12, 2008)

Anti-wingnut said:


> PC is full of it


What part are you referring to? Can you make yourself clear?

Are you saying I don't have a waiver?

Are you saying I don't use a waiver?

Are you saying I am a liar?

Are you saying my contract doesn't have a Right To Repossess?

Read items 12 and tell me if I have the right to repossess. 

If the waiver is not legal then you had better tell the state of California because it is the Contractor's Board that specified the exact wording inside the box.

You need just about another 50 years of business experience before you can challenge me and call me a liar! I run several multi-million dollar businesses and I set up many businesses for contractors, friends and every business owner I help nets more than $400k every year. Maybe, you should consider listening so you can improve your business. Whether or not everyone thinks I am a crackpot doesn't matter and even if I am wrong I have to be opening up some eyes and feeding food for thought.

The Waiver Of Right To Cancel is defined very clearly by the California State Contractor's Board. The CSLB has a very specific paragraph that must be written on the waiver and a specific statement that must be written in the customer's handwriting.

I made my own waiver and put the CSLB's wording in a separate box. Then, I added my own wording outside the box that explains the waiver in a language the customer can understand. Then, I put my terms that state what happens when the customer cancels after signing the waiver.


----------



## jproffer (Feb 19, 2005)

Just because you put it in your contract doesn't make it legal. Your contract doesn't supersede the law, and the law says you can't "repossess" as you call it....."steal" as I call it...materials out of someone's home. You DO have legal remedies available to you, but that's not one of them. You need to remember section 12 of your contract. Out of all the states in the nation, if I had to pick one that I'd say would NEVER let you repossess materials, it's California.

You're getting away with it...good for you...but someday you may not. I think that's all anyone is trying to say.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

pcplumber said:


> I missed you and was waiting.
> 
> I go to a customer's home and install the water heater. I ask the customer for the money and she tells me to get lost. That water heater comes out and the police have backed me up every time a customer refused to pay and it has happened many times.
> 
> ...


Blah blah blah. You mine as well stop writing such lengthy posts to defend your consistently wrong posts.

Once you attach something to the structure of a home it becomes part of the structure. It is no longer your property to take. It doesn't matter what they have done. You are not legally able to remove it from the property. 

No cop had ever allowed you to do it. I call BS. You are making it up so that you can back up your bs sorry. And I'll prove it. 

I'm and not right and wrong, just right. You have recourse if they refuse to pay, but that recourse does not include removing the property. It's called theft of services. You can call the cops and they may or may not issue a ticket. Most of the time a cop will tell you is a civil matter end of story.

At this point I think this is a big joke. You cannot be for real. I don't get how ignorant on so many subjects one can be yet still have a multimillion dollar business. It amazes me.


----------



## builditguy (Nov 10, 2013)

No. 

This is the answer you were looking for? How would a bunch of "yes, no, yes, no, no, yes" make you feel better? Maybe you should have added that in your original post. "Here is my situation. Please answer yes or no. No comments please."

As far as repossession? You can call is whatever you want. I don't doubt that you have done it. The laws call it theft and criminal damage to property. Most likely criminal trespass also. I can believe an officer would watch you break the law. I have seen officers do alot of things that are wrong. It is a civil matter, but they get to keep the stuff and the court will order them to pay you.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

Someone who claims that many zeros in their annual gross and half a century in business has been involved in court. Care to enlighten us on the results?


----------



## GettingBy (Aug 19, 2010)

CarpenterSFO said:


> Edit: I had the benefit of being good friends with a budding con artist, early in life.


People with Antisocial Personality Disorder who are dumb don't do so well but the smart ones can do great harm to many people.

http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Sociopath-Spent-Hiding-Plain/dp/0307956652


----------



## Framer53 (Feb 23, 2008)

Again, more bluster on your part. If the 3-day notice is legally mandated by law, any waiver is not enforceable


Actually that is not true. There is one exception in law and that is emergency.
an emergency is when you have water running out of broken pipes. An emergency is when you have a fire and the house needs to be boarded up
There are a lot of scenarios that decide an emergency.

The part I have a hard time with is the one where he takes installed goods off of existing house. Shoot, I was fired from a job with materials I paid for sitting in a garage and the cops would not allow me to take them. The tools, yes, materials no, even with proof I had paid FOR THEM


----------



## Framer53 (Feb 23, 2008)

Randy, I want to apologize on coming down on you so hard, but we get sick of trying to figure out scenarios where all info is not provided.

It looks like you have a real chose to make. If it was me and I could cover it, I would take him to court and give the money back. The attorney fees be damned.

If you can't afford to do that, my advise is to forget it and tighten up your contract so it can't happen again.

We all appreciate know what happened and made all of aware that there are real scum bags out there looking to take money from us. I knew that as I have had a few rip me also. But I took them as a lesson and moved on.


----------



## Shellbuilder (May 14, 2006)

EricBrancard said:


> He knew how much he was going to be paying you before he even got your bid. The guy knew exact what he was doing. Never take a "paid in full" check for less than the amount you're owed.


You can accept and deposit those checks, you endorse it with "accepted with prejudice"


----------



## Framer53 (Feb 23, 2008)

Shellbuilder said:


> You can accept and deposit those checks, you endorse it with "accepted with prejudice"


Except in Illinois if they accompany the check with a document showing it was negotiated settlement.
In fact that may be true in all states, I don't know.
It looks like this person new exactly what he was doing to Randy ahead of time.


----------



## pcplumber (Oct 12, 2008)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Blah blah blah. You mine as well stop writing such lengthy posts to defend your consistently wrong posts.
> 
> Once you attach something to the structure of a home it becomes part of the structure. It is no longer your property to take. It doesn't matter what they have done. You are not legally able to remove it from the property.
> 
> ...


This will be my last post on this subject.

1) You are right according to the law. Once you attach something to a house it becomes a part of the structure (or whatever the law really calls it) and according to the law you cannot remove it. When you take it out of context that same law does not clarify a time period nor every specific circumstance. If I bring a water heater, furnace, or whatever to your house, connect the gas flex to that furnace and you tell me to leave that heater and get out of your house you can bet that the heater is going with me, or there is going to be a physical altercation the same as if you try to walk out of a store with stolen goods.

2) You are right again! Removing property at a later date from personal property is against the law and item 12 in my contract will probably not protect me. I have never been taken to court for removing my plumbing and removing the items has given me great satisfaction.

3) You are wrong about new construction and I have the right to repossess. New construction is not covered by the law because nobody is residing on the property. Nobody is using the items and nobody is relying on those items for their health.

4) Someone who said the waiver is for emergencies is 100% right. Read the words I wrote on my waiver. 

It says, "I DISAGREE WITH THE CALIFORNIA LAW AND A PERSON CANNOT GIVE UP THEIR RIGHT TO CANCEL 'ANY' JOB.

That statement means, even after the customer signs the waiver he can still cancel the job. I can't stop someone from locking their door on me.

5)

A) The law states that a person has the 3-Day Right To Cancel Within Three Days

B) The law states that a person can waive the 3-day waiting period for ONLY THE EMERGENCY REPAIR PORTION of the the job.

C) The law states that when a job is an emergency the contractor has to get the Waiver Of Right To Cancel signed, the customer still has three days to cancel the job, BUT THE CONTRACTOR IS ALLOWED TO DO ONLY THE EMERGENCY REPAIR PORTION OF THE JOB and I think that value is even limited up to $900 (not sure).

D) What can or does the contractor do when the contractor lands a huge job and the customer DEMANDS that the contractor start the entire job, IMMEDIATELY?

What does the contractor do when the job is $50,000 and the customer tells the contractor that relatives are coming to his house to visit, he wants the work started, immediately, the customer doesn't give a damn about the law and if the contractor doesn't start the job the customer will get someone who will.

Okay, Mr. Big Contractor! What are you going to do. 

A) Are you going to be a weenie, run and let your competitor have the job.

B) Are you going to start the job with absolutely no legal protection and no waiver?

C) Are you going to have the customer sign a waiver and have the customer put in his own words and his own handwriting, ON THE WAIVER, something like,

"I am demanding that my contractor start my job, IMMEDIATELY, and I do not want to wait 3 days because I have relatives coming and I want my job finished before they come.

Call me whatever you want, but you have to admit that I did some very serious homework and this is some pretty good stuff that a very high percent of contractors are not aware of. The lack of knowledge and the failure to understand nor use this type of information is the reason there are so many contractors getting the short end of the stick.

You can stick with your tunnel vision and textbook definitions. I read the construction law books at least once every few years and I REALLY sit with my attorney about 2 to 3 hours every year (not all in one session). 

A) I always drop off my contracts with highlighted notes, ask questions.

B) I meet a 2nd time to discuss changes

C) I meet a 3rd time after my attorney writes the changes and then I make the changes to my contract at my office.

Say, "thank you for the information Mr. PC."

And...try adding some positive information, or are you always picking on me because you want to know more.

6 to 0


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

From everything that I have read cashing the check that is labeled payment in full is legally binding by the accord and satisfaction law. Striking it out or writing something about it being protested won't negate the satisfaction portion once cashed. 

Best bet is to send it back and sue, lien or send to collections


----------



## Shellbuilder (May 14, 2006)

Framer53 said:


> Except in Illinois if they accompany the check with a document showing it was negotiated settlement.
> In fact that may be true in all states, I don't know.
> It looks like this person new exactly what he was doing to Randy ahead of time.


Well yeah if you sign other paperwork that concludes the agreement.....otherwise take what they give you and sign accepted with prejudice. I had this stick in a settlement once.


----------



## Shellbuilder (May 14, 2006)

TNTSERVICES said:


> From everything that I have read cashing the check that is labeled payment in full is legally binding by the accord and satisfaction law. Striking it out or writing something about it being protested won't negate the satisfaction portion once cashed.
> 
> Best bet is to send it back and sue, lien or send to collections


What have you read?


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

Shellbuilder said:


> What have you read?


Look up "accord and satisfaction" law. It pretty much favors settling a debt by marking the check "payment in full". The accord is the amount in the check and the satisfaction is cashing the check. Regardless of what you do to alter the text or protest it.


----------



## pcplumber (Oct 12, 2008)

TNTSERVICES said:


> From everything that I have read cashing the check that is labeled payment in full is legally binding by the accord and satisfaction law. Striking it out or writing something about it being protested won't negate the satisfaction portion once cashed.
> 
> Best bet is to send it back and sue, lien or send to collections


Here you go, again, with your textbook definition.

It will negate the statement written when the contractor is forced to accept and cash the check when placed under duress.

Your claim is like saying a customer can't sue you for price gouging because the customer signed your contract.

Or, your statement is like saying a customer can't sue you because the customer signed off on a job stating that the job was done to their satisfaction and a month later they found that the sewer pipe was not connected underneath the house.

Or, your statement is like saying a customer can't sue you because you signed a contract for a 40-gallon water heater with a little old lady for $50,000 and because the customer signed the contract you will win in court.

Everything in this world can be challenged and the contract will always supersede what some clown writes on a check. 

A) The check is not a binding contract.

B) The words on the check ARE NOT A MUTUAL AGREEMENT.

C) The contactor ACCEPTED AND CASHED THE CHECK UNDER DURRESS because if he doesn't he can't pay his bills and that will create another nightmare.

The jury is not that stupid.

I am an Expert Witness for several attorneys and have been hired for several lawsuits. I go to many depositions and court cases. People like myself resolve these cases so either the customer or owner will win and we won't bring in someone like you who is constantly preaching textbook definitions. We discuss the textbook laws and then discuss the special circumstances where the laws are not clearly defined, where the laws fail to protect people due to special circumstances and where someone mischievously misconstrues the laws to screw someone.

If laws and textbook definitions were as perfect as you preach then people would not need to go to court for opinions and judgments. All they would need to do is ask you to read the laws, definitions and every case would be settled, instantly.

The problem with laws, rules and definitions is there are always hundreds of thousands of exceptions to the rules.

If I go to court as an Expert Witness with the contractor in this thread I will give my Expert Opinion that the contractor took the check under duress, the contract supersedes the check, and the check is not a MUTUALLY AGREED UPON BINDING CONTRACT. Now, all we need is a judge with some common sense that understands the special circumstances where the customer is mischievously screwing the contractor and textbook law is not applicable for the special circumstances.

So, if the contractor in this thread decides to go to court use the words in the above paragraph and you are 100% 'likely' to win that portion of your case base on those words, but you may still lose on other issues not related to the check, at all.

Or, I put the customer on my vendetta list. That is always the easiest and the outcome is 100% guaranteed satisfaction, or YOUR MONEY BACK!

I am smart and certifiably nuts.

7 to 0


----------



## griz (Nov 26, 2009)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Look up "accord and satisfaction" law. It pretty much favors settling a debt by marking the check "payment in full". The accord is the amount in the check and the satisfaction is cashing the check. Regardless of what you do to alter the text or protest it.


As I recall the " Accord and Satisfaction Law" requires that there be a mutual agreement for such an endorsement to be valid.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

pcplumber said:


> Here you go, again, with your textbook definition.
> 
> It will negate the statement written when the contractor is forced to accept and cash the check when placed under duress.
> 
> ...


It's not a claim, it's the law. It's the truth. I'm just telling you what is in black and white. I know you hate facts because they prove you wrong but that doesn't change the facts.

None of your bs scenarios will overturn law. Please show me legal precedent that contradicts what I have said. Just an actual case not from your land of make believe.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

pcplumber said:


> This will be my last post on this subject.
> 
> 1) You are right according to the law. Once you attach something to a house it becomes a part of the structure (or whatever the law really calls it) and according to the law you cannot remove it. When you take it out of context that same law does not clarify a time period nor every specific circumstance. If I bring a water heater, furnace, or whatever to your house, connect the gas flex to that furnace and you tell me to leave that heater and get out of your house you can bet that the heater is going with me, or there is going to be a physical altercation the same as if you try to walk out of a store with stolen goods.
> 
> ...


You do relays realize 99% of people don't read your posts? They are too long and full of your make believe scenarios.

I'm not picking on you, I'm making sure that no one takes what you say seriously. It's never right.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

Damn! pc's post keep getting longer and longer.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

480sparky said:


> Damn! pc's post keep getting longer and longer.


And my waders have to keep getting taller and taller.

Apparently the more words you use the more correct you are.


----------



## heavy_d (Dec 4, 2012)

I read every word of his posts, I quite enjoy them.


----------



## jlsconstruction (Apr 26, 2011)

Holy chit, if I wanted to read a book I'd buy American sniper.


----------



## Shellbuilder (May 14, 2006)

TNTSERVICES said:


> From everything that I have read cashing the check that is labeled payment in full is legally binding by the accord and satisfaction law. Striking it out or writing something about it being protested won't negate the satisfaction portion once cashed.
> 
> Best bet is to send it back and sue, lien or send to collections


I have collected in court after accepting a check that had "paid in full" and my "accepted with prejudice" endorsement.


----------



## pcplumber (Oct 12, 2008)

TNTSERVICES said:


> You do relays realize 99% of people don't read your posts? They are too long and full of your make believe scenarios.
> 
> I'm not picking on you, I'm making sure that no one takes what you say seriously. It's never right.



You are 100% right! People don't read 100% of my posts. 

You can also say that a high percent of contractors have licenses and they never read one page in a book regarding the laws.

You are funny and you should read between your own lines. If members don't follow through with reading my posts then they should not argue about what I write without digesting all the information.

The same contractors who won't read until they understand will be the contractors who have the most legal problems.

I try to help people. You attacks inhibit discussion and learning. When people are attacked without good reason they have to be afraid to write posts and that inhibits their willingness to ask questions that are important to them. 

The internet is a terrific place for gathering information to bag on old pcplumber. If you or anyone is ever in Los Angeles you are welcome to drop by my office. I will gladly show you my control center (as I call it) where I run $multi-million businesses in a tiny office with only one secretary. Seeing is believing and I've had several members from forums take me up on that offer. I believe two forums would have the initials RF and PZ (since you can't mention other forums on CT, I think).


----------



## Shellbuilder (May 14, 2006)

pcplumber said:


> You are 100% right! People don't read 100% of my posts.
> 
> You can also say that a high percent of contractors have licenses and they never read one page in a book regarding the laws.
> 
> ...


I enjoy PCs post. Especially like his marketing techniques


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

Shellbuilder said:


> I have collected in court after accepting a check that had "paid in full" and my "accepted with prejudice" endorsement.


Right but OJ also got away with murder. Point being is most examples and explanations of the law states that it is most likely binding.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

pcplumber said:


> You are 100% right! People don't read 100% of my posts.
> 
> You can also say that a high percent of contractors have licenses and they never read one page in a book regarding the laws.
> 
> ...


I correct your misinformation and bad bad bad advice...sorry stories and experience. Have you noticed I'm not the only one that disagrees with you? Maybe the loudest but not the only.


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

The only thing i saw in that judgement was since the first cheque that was attempted cashed but was over 6 mos old had the proper wording on it, but the 2nd cheque cashed didn't that it was judged an acceptance of that cheque as payement in full. 

It's the "good faith" part. Becasue he put the wording in the first cheque it showed that he _knew_ that wording to be necessary. 
But I also skimmed a bit

Forget what I wrote. Kids were in the room. Read it again and it looks like so long as the wording on the cheque is visible and legible it works as an accord, no matter what wording is added


----------



## Shellbuilder (May 14, 2006)

You can google accepting a paid in full check and sue for balance and see accord and satisfaction statute appear in many attorney blogs. In nearly every case it says you can still recover by endorsing with 'reservation of rights" My attorney said to use "accept with prejudice" and it was tried and case was disposed by Judge in a matter of minutes. My case was very small,less than 25,000.00


----------



## EthanB (Sep 28, 2011)

Just to be clear, I'm playing lawyer here just like everyone else. If I were in this position I would be hiring a litigation attorney that's handled a bunch of these.

It appears that the "paid in full" check needs to be preceded by a notification of dispute. The check alone is not sufficient. Writing on the check before you deposit it doesn't mean anything more than a memo. I don't think it hurts though. Documentation between you and your lawyer about the check would serve just as well.

Accord and satisfaction is limited by the "bona fide dispute" wording in the Uniform Commercial Code. http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/3/3-311

Two things to note: the law may be different from state to state; Judges and juries are people, they don't always decide the same way even with the same facts.

I hope this helps, that will be $350.:laughing:


----------



## griz (Nov 26, 2009)

Shellbuilder said:


> You can google accepting a paid in full check and sue for balance and see accord and satisfaction statute appear in many attorney blogs. In nearly every case it says you can still recover by endorsing with 'reservation of rights" My attorney said to use "accept with prejudice" and it was tried and case was disposed by Judge in a matter of minutes. .........http://www.nrlrc.net/content/membersonly/sidebar/0307_sidebar_accord_and_satisfaction.pdf


:thumbsup:

The "Accord and Satisfaction Law" only works when there is a mutual agreement between Contractor & client.

If this were not so every client could just short you a few hundred bucks on every job, write paid in full on the check and be done with it.

One would spend more in time just filing & serving the papers.


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

Indiana law sounds different

Under the common law rule the seller, 
by obtaining payment of the ch
eck accepts the offer of 
compromise by the buyer. 
The result is the same if the seller 
adds a notation to the check 
indicating that the check is 
accepted under protest or in only 
partial satisfaction of the 
claim. Under the common law ru
le the seller can refuse the 
check or can accept it subject to
 the condition stated by the 
buyer, but the seller can’t accept 
the check and refuse to be 
bound by the condition.


----------



## griz (Nov 26, 2009)

Yes, states may and do have different interpretations.

It also can depend on the mood of the judge....:whistling


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

griz said:


> :thumbsup:
> 
> The "Accord and Satisfaction Law" only works when there is a mutual agreement between Contractor & client.
> 
> ...


It only takes a letter accompanying the check. If the letter is there and you cash the check you might have just satisfied satisfaction.

That's all a bona fide dispute means.

To Shellbuilder, the payment in full also had to be fair.

I'm not suggesting that it's black and white. But the were many guys in here who said it doesn't matter what they write, when in fact it just might.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

Back to basics. If the original contract (and around here, a quote alone is binding as well) said he was going to reroof the house for X dollars he gets paid X dollars unless there is a CO. The basic argument is that absent a CO, there is no final meeting of the minds to have a valid contract, so the contract becomes unenforceable.

TNT rightly points out that you're entitled to be paid for services, even in the absence to a written contract. The resulting case is no longer contract based, but the contract will come into play for the history.

Because state law here says quotes are legally binding, you quote for 50 sq, write your contract for 50 sq, and install 50 sq unless there is a CO, but you'd have to be very clear on all this that it was not for a full roofing job.

State laws can and do vary around the country, and I'm not a lawyer, don't give legal advise, and probably my opinions on legal matters are worth as much as I charge - maybe less.


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

That's not how the contract was written. he gave him a price per square, it doesn't sound like there was any mention of how many sq there were

I do contracts like this occassionally, usually on an install only project. I give them a sqft price and we measure up at the end. Same goes for brick, a per brick price and we count bricks when all is said and done. So he gave the guy a unit price per square and measure it after and billed accordingly


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

dom-mas said:


> That's not how the contract was written. he gave him a price per square, it doesn't sound like there was any mention of how many sq there were
> 
> I do contracts like this occassionally, usually on an install only project. I give them a sqft price and we measure up at the end. Same goes for brick, a per brick price and we count bricks when all is said and done. So he gave the guy a unit price per square and measure it after and billed accordingly


It sounds like he was asked to quote 50sq. It also sounds like that's what he did, but then stated in the quote, contract and e-mails that there was more than 50sq. It's all a bit fuzy.

He also posted a link to precedent that showed how the law is interpreted in his state.


----------



## ohiohomedoctor (Dec 26, 2010)

How could anyone bid a project without knowing the measurements? With eagle view and measure map it just doesnt make any sense..


----------



## pcplumber (Oct 12, 2008)

California Civil Code §1526(a), passed in 1987, states:

"Where a claim is disputed or unliquidated and a check or draft is tendered by the debtor in settlement thereof in full discharge of the claim, and the words "payment in full" or other words of similar meaning are notated on the check or draft, the acceptance of the check or draft does not constitute an accord and satisfaction if the creditor protests against accepting the tender in full payment by striking out or otherwise deleting that notation or if the acceptance of the check or draft was inadvertent or without knowledge of the notation."


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

pcplumber said:


> California Civil Code §1526(a), passed in 1987, states:
> 
> "Where a claim is disputed or unliquidated and a check or draft is tendered by the debtor in settlement thereof in full discharge of the claim, and the words "payment in full" or other words of similar meaning are notated on the check or draft, the acceptance of the check or draft does not constitute an accord and satisfaction if the creditor protests against accepting the tender in full payment by striking out or otherwise deleting that notation or if the acceptance of the check or draft was inadvertent or without knowledge of the notation."



So where's the part of that which allows you to go rip out installed material from a customer's job?


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

TNTSERVICES said:


> It sounds like he was asked to quote 50sq. It also sounds like that's what he did, but then stated in the quote, contract and e-mails that there was more than 50sq. It's all a bit fuzy.
> 
> He also posted a link to precedent that showed how the law is interpreted in his state.


Could be. Only he and the other guy really know how his agreement was worded


ohiohomedoctor said:


> How could anyone bid a project without knowing the measurements? With eagle view and measure map it just doesnt make any sense..


It's common in masonry. Giving a per brick/per thou price then counting when it's all done. Part of that is because taking sqft amounts and multiplying the # of brick per sqft doesn't give you an accurate amount since cuts and heads are considered a full brick (I make sure to note that in my quote) and can add a few hundred brick to even a small project. What I actually do is give them a per brick price, and a price for each detail, say a lnft price for soldiers, another for sills etc... that way they can change their mind, add stuff or take it away put a band course in and i don't have to do a pile of change orders.

I could see it in roofing if someone e-mailed you a site picture for a project that was some distance away and you were too busy to take a look. You know access, how many roof lines, valleys etc... but not exact measurements. Give a price per square and measure when the job is done


----------



## PatChap (Jun 1, 2012)

dom-mas said:


> Could be. Only he and the other guy really know how his agreement was worded
> 
> 
> It's common in masonry. Giving a per brick/per thou price then counting when it's all done. Part of that is because taking sqft amounts and multiplying the # of brick per sqft doesn't give you an accurate amount since cuts and heads are considered a full brick (I make sure to note that in my quote) and can add a few hundred brick to even a small project. What I actually do is give them a per brick price, and a price for each detail, say a lnft price for soldiers, another for sills etc... that way they can change their mind, add stuff or take it away put a band course in and i don't have to do a pile of change orders.
> ...


Thats usually how we bid new construction roofs, since we only do big customs in new con. Getting exact measurements can be very complicated and doesn't really change anything, they get a price by the bundle with extras for valleys and detail work.


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

Since we don't know the details for sure....


----------



## littlefred811 (Dec 16, 2012)

I'd cash that sucker and take back the overage from various places. Let them sue. Nothing more fun than calling someone a liar in open court.(done it, had a lot of fun doing it.)
Luck


----------



## Jaws (Dec 20, 2010)

ohiohomedoctor said:


> How could anyone bid a project without knowing the measurements? With eagle view and measure map it just doesnt make any sense..


Or just a tape and a clip board with some graph paper....:whistling


----------



## slowsol (Aug 27, 2005)

PatChap said:


> Thats usually how we bid new construction roofs, since we only do big customs in new con. Getting exact measurements can be very complicated and doesn't really change anything, they get a price by the bundle with extras for valleys and detail work.


That's a lot different than what he original poster did. 

If he would have said on his quote/contract, "Price per square : $250.00. Total quantity to be determined upon completion."

But instead he gave a seemingly random quantity with the disclaimer. 

If I'm a judge there is a big difference between listing a per piece price and a finite quantity.


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

RandyB1986 said:


> I told him on my bid, contract and email that it was larger than 50 square and bill would be adjusted according to material used(He was supplying materials).


this is what I saw. Bid at 50 sq with a note that it may be larger


----------



## RandyB1986 (Jan 2, 2009)

griz said:


> As I recall the " Accord and Satisfaction Law" requires that there be a mutual agreement for such an endorsement to be valid.


The mutual agreement comes when they present a negotiable item as paid in full, that is them agreeing....then when you sign the check, you are agreeing, therefore it is mutual.

You always have the right to not accept the negotiable item and sue instead....but in my case that would have meant my help would have had to wait for me to come up with money to pay them, and it was 4 days before Christmas. I have the money to return now....but am about over the headache.


----------



## RandyB1986 (Jan 2, 2009)

dom-mas said:


> That's not how the contract was written. he gave him a price per square, it doesn't sound like there was any mention of how many sq there were
> 
> I do contracts like this occassionally, usually on an install only project. I give them a sqft price and we measure up at the end. Same goes for brick, a per brick price and we count bricks when all is said and done. So he gave the guy a unit price per square and measure it after and billed accordingly


You are exactly right. I have done this for 20 years and never had a problem. This builder is just a crook....plain and simple. You should see how many times he has been sued and sued others....in my county alone. 

Think a Home Depot crew would remove it, if paid in advance by a guy named Bob. :laughing:


----------



## RandyB1986 (Jan 2, 2009)

slowsol said:


> That's a lot different than what he original poster did.
> 
> If he would have said on his quote/contract, "Price per square : $250.00. Total quantity to be determined upon completion."
> 
> ...


I wanted to measure the house...and should have insisted and will from now on. He wanted me to bid it at 50 to compare to other estimate he had received, I told him it was bigger than that and I would bid it per square based on 50. I then sent him email making sure he understood it was per square, which he replied to. I then told him on the phone.

Contract was like:

Labor- Tear off and dispose of shingles 50 sq x $XX = $Total
Labor- Install Felt & Shingles 50sq x $XX =$Total
Labor- Tear off all existing decking and install new OSB 165 Sheets x $XX = $Total

Like I told him, maybe I should have quite after we got to 50. I don't know.....but Karma is a stinker.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)

So if your contract was for 50 squares, why didn't you install 50 squares and present the bill?

"You mean the other 20 squares that's not done? I didn't do that because you only wanted 50 done. Well, it'll be $***x to do that..... sign here, please."


----------



## RangoWA (Jun 25, 2014)

If it was just by the square why mention a total? I don't get that. But if someone wrote payed in full on a check and there was a balance due I'd just scribble it out and deposit it.


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

RangoWA said:


> If it was just by the square why mention a total? I don't get that. But if someone wrote payed in full on a check and there was a balance due I'd just scribble it out and deposit it.


My thoughts as well. If quoting piece work leave it as piece work, don't involve a total, unless it's a minimum or a maximum

Rango, Indiana law says that it is legally binding (sucks to live in Indiana) but the case that was presented and also the commentary sort of made mention that it was to do with poor workmanship...not really contract dispute so it may not apply


----------



## jproffer (Feb 19, 2005)

RandyB1986 said:


> I wanted to measure the house...and should have insisted and will from now on. He wanted me to bid it at 50 to compare to other estimate he had received, I told him it was bigger than that and I would bid it per square based on 50. I then sent him email making sure he understood it was per square, which he replied to. I then told him on the phone.
> 
> Contract was like:
> 
> ...


I know it's easy for us to say in hindsight, but I hope next time you'll bid it at 70 squares with a note attached...something like this:

"I bid your project at the actual size as opposed to the imaginary size you gave me. If you can't figure out how to divide by 70 then multiply by 50, I probably don't want to work for you anyway. Have a great day."


----------



## RandyB1986 (Jan 2, 2009)

jproffer said:


> "I bid your project at the actual size as opposed to the imaginary size you gave me. If you can't figure out how to divide by 70 then multiply by 50, I probably don't want to work for you anyway. Have a great day."


You had me laughing on that....


----------



## Anti-wingnut (Mar 12, 2009)

pcplumber said:


> This will be my last post on this subject.


That didn't take did it?


----------



## EthanB (Sep 28, 2011)

Anti-wingnut said:


> That didn't take did it?


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

Anti-wingnut said:


> That didn't take did it?


He always says that. When he does, its my duty to make sure it's not.


----------



## RangoWA (Jun 25, 2014)

dom-mas said:


> My thoughts as well. If quoting piece work leave it as piece work, don't involve a total, unless it's a minimum or a maximum
> 
> Rango, Indiana law says that it is legally binding (sucks to live in Indiana) but the case that was presented and also the commentary sort of made mention that it was to do with poor workmanship...not really contract dispute so it may not apply


I understand, but if the comment was scribbled out who's to know what was there? A carbon copy of it could have been added after the fact, a photo of the check could have beeb edited. How would someone prove what was there?


----------



## actforms (Jul 22, 2009)

pcplumber said:


> My attorney had a special name for things people put in contracts that will not hold up in court. I can't remember what he called those things, but having them in the contract is not illegal. *They are called "wild clauses"*
> I was waiting for someone to challenge both my repossession clause and my repossessing material. A high percent of contractors are going to say that it is against the law to repossess materials. It may be, but not illegal in every case. A high percent of contractors think that once materials are installed you cannot disconnect them and take them out. In a high percent of cases you have the perfect legal right to take them out. If you are installing fixtures and equipment on a new construction job and you don't get paid you can take your items out.
> 
> *This is completely untrue. Just because someone does not pursue action against you for doing this does not mean it cannot happen and that you have a "right" to rip out materials for non-payment. While you can remove materials stored at the property that have not been paid for and have not been incorporated or installed into the building... once you install piping or any other materials into the building, with very few exceptions, it is no longer your property to remove.. paid for or not! Police are not legal experts and should have never allowed your removal of an installed furnace like you describe in the paragraph below... and... if the homeowner wanted to pursue it... you would not only pay to have a furnace re-installed but you would also more than likely pay damages for the homeowner being without heat and might be given punitive damages for leaving the home in an unsafe condition... could cost you many times the price of that furnace!*
> ...


One of the hardest lessons I had to learn was that operating a business is not personal... even if you work by yourself without an "organization" behind you. I come from three generations of contractors full of pride in the work they did/do. Righteous indignation and "getting even" has gotten us into more trouble from directions you cannot imagine than most everything else!


----------



## pcplumber (Oct 12, 2008)

actforms said:


> One of the hardest lessons I had to learn was that operating a business is not personal... even if you work by yourself without an "organization" behind you. I come from three generations of contractors full of pride in the work they did/do. Righteous indignation and "getting even" has gotten us into more trouble from directions you cannot imagine than most everything else!


Not everything is in black and white. I would have a very good chance of winning in court when I remove materials from a home, or new construction and this depends on specific circumstances. For you to say that there is no time nor circumstances where a contractor can repossess materials is wrong and that makes me right. The time period regarding several circumstances would come into play in court. I am sure that 99.89% of the members on this forum will agree with you, but when I remove materials from a home I am not worried about laws. I have actually had the police wait on the property while I removed materials from my my job several other times. They usually allow me to remove the materials almost every time. That is the way it has been and I don't care what people say and I don't care about the law regarding this issue. If you want to be a sissy, coward, or whatever and leave $1,000 or more worth of materials on a job you know the people won't pay then live you can live with the customers stealing from you. Nobody steals from me without paying something!

Wrong about the Waiver Of Right To Cancel. As stated in my recent post, the EXACT wording for the waiver is in the California law rules and I am not going to waste my time looking them up to show proof. My company and several others have been using the Waiver Of Right To Cancel for 43 to 60 years.

Link regarding a customer asking quesitons about the Waiver Of Right To Cancel:

I'm going to hire a company to do my roof job. One company came and said the deal they gave was great and had me signed their contract and took a deposit of $800. In addition to that, without informing me about the 3-day cancellation right, they had me sign the Waiver of Right to Cancel (Only the name, adress, and signature were written by me, others were writtent by the company people on their format). On the Waiver, there's no description for emergency situation and only states that I gave the company permition to order material for the roof work. Later on, I found there were a lot of problems related to that company and I don't want to proceed. On this third day of the contract signed, do I still have right to cancel the contract and get my money back? They already deposited my check.

Save
ATTORNEY ANSWERS (2)

Helpful votes
Answered 4 years ago. Unless this was an emergency service and repair job, the right applies to your job, and you can't be asked to waive this right. You should report this contractor to the CSLB for violating their contractual requirements. 

Answer this question:

A) As stated in my post, a customer has the right to cancel within 3 days.

B) A customer can waive their right to cancel if it is an a emergency.

C) A customer has the right to tell you that they want their job started immediately even in the job is not an emergency. There is no way the government can tell a customer that they can't have a job started if they want it started and there is no way the government can dictate the laws the customer has to go by.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

pcplumber said:


> For you to say that there is no time nor circumstances where a contractor can repossess materials is wrong and that makes me right.


He actually said this: "While you can remove materials stored at the property that have not been paid for and have not been incorporated or installed into the building... once you install piping or any other materials into the building, *with very few exceptions*, it is no longer your property to remove.."

So he never said there was no time nor circumstance. You are wrong yet again.



pcplumber said:


> If you want to be a sissy, coward, or whatever and leave $1,000 or more worth of materials on a job you know the people won't pay then live you can live with the customers stealing from you. Nobody steals from me without paying something!


This has nothing to do with bravado. I, for one, don't need to prove my manhood constantly. It is not cowardly to respect the laws even if it means that it appears you are weak. This isn't about how anyone feels, it's about knowing the rules and playing by them.

The fact is the law states you cannot reposes materials attached to the property. The courts have always frowned upon it. That is why there are lien laws. Regardless of whether or not you have gotten away with it, it is illegal and you could be in some pretty serious trouble. Cops don't know the law that well. It's pretty silly to use them as a gauges as to the righteousness of one's actions.

I've looked up the law in several states and it says that you are only allowed to repossess materials that have not been incororated, and it often the wording includes peacefully repossess. So even materials that you can repossess have to be repossessed in a peaceful manner.

Also, if you are asked to leave the property, you have to leave. Regardless of your reasons for being there.



pcplumber said:


> Wrong about the Waiver Of Right To Cancel. As stated in my recent post, the EXACT wording for the waiver is in the California law rules and I am not going to waste my time looking them up to show proof. My company and several others have been using the Waiver Of Right To Cancel for 43 to 60 years.


60 years? I don't think right to cancel laws have been around that long.

But he's right, they don't hold up in court. Emergency is the only reason they will, and not even then will it hold up every time.

Do you actually have anything to prove what you are saying is any where near accurate?


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

pcplumber said:


> Link regarding a customer asking quesitons about the Waiver Of Right To Cancel:
> 
> I'm going to hire a company to do my roof job. One company came and said the deal they gave was great and had me signed their contract and took a deposit of $800. In addition to that, without informing me about the 3-day cancellation right, they had me sign the Waiver of Right to Cancel (Only the name, adress, and signature were written by me, others were writtent by the company people on their format). On the Waiver, there's no description for emergency situation and only states that I gave the company permition to order material for the roof work. Later on, I found there were a lot of problems related to that company and I don't want to proceed. On this third day of the contract signed, do I still have right to cancel the contract and get my money back? They already deposited my check.
> 
> ...


You just proved him right. The only instance a customer can waive their rights is in emergency.

But you are correct, the right to cancel does not keep a customer from having work completed on their home prior to the end of the 3 days. It does however mean that as a contractor you are taking a risk that when you are complete they can completely negate the contract and you have no recourse. They wouldn't have to pay you a dime.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

Here's some retention law for ya:

"Materials Delivered but Not Paid For

A retention of title can be relied upon by the materials supplier where it has a contract with the employer or purchaser that states that the seller retains legal ownership of the materials until such time as it receives full payment for them. This helps to protect the contractor or supplier in situations where the seller (or a third party to which the seller transfers possession of the materials) becomes insolvent and never pays for the materials; the retention of title clause allows the supplier to argue, in certain circumstances, that it has priority of ownership over other parties. 

*There are certain exceptions to the operation of a retention of title clause. For example, when materials or materials have been incorporated into other works or materials so that they are no longer identifiable or capable of repossession, the contractor or subcontractor cannot remove them.* The retention of title clause is thus defeated."


----------



## pcplumber (Oct 12, 2008)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Here's some retention law for ya:
> 
> "Materials Delivered but Not Paid For
> 
> ...


Too many laws. Not enough time to worry about them. I am not teaching law. I am only telling you what I do and what works for me.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

pcplumber said:


> Too many laws. Not enough time to worry about them. I am not teaching law. I am only telling you what I do and what works for me.


Yep and I am here to make sure that people don't follow your example or even think that you remotely know what you are talking about.


----------



## Anti-wingnut (Mar 12, 2009)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Yep and I am here to make sure that people don't follow your example or *even think that you remotely know what you are talking about.*


:thumbsup:


----------



## Anti-wingnut (Mar 12, 2009)

pcplumber said:


> This will be my last post on this subject.


That seems like so long ago he tempted us with nirvana


----------



## Sabagley (Dec 31, 2012)

I'm going to try this "paid in full" thing on my next mortgage payment. 

I'll let you all know how it goes....


----------



## pcplumber (Oct 12, 2008)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Yep and I am here to make sure that people don't follow your example or even think that you remotely know what you are talking about.


Yes, Dad!

Yes, Mr. Police Officer!


----------



## pcplumber (Oct 12, 2008)

Sabagley said:


> I'm going to try this "paid in full" thing on my next mortgage payment.
> 
> I'll let you all know how it goes....


Yes!!! And then I will win because it won't mean a damn thing!!! Your mortgage company won't even return the check. They will cash it and you will still owe the balance.

Just the words 'Paid In Full' on your check could apply to either the monthly payment, or the entire principal. Thus, 'Paid In Full' would apply for the monthly payment.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

pcplumber said:


> Yes, Dad!
> 
> Yes, Mr. Police Officer!


For one, you are older than me so the timing is off, but if I need to warn others and at least educate them as to why your examples are horrible and no one should mirror them, then who's your DADDY!

And you really have to get off of thinking cops know anything about the law.


----------



## pcplumber (Oct 12, 2008)

TNTSERVICES said:


> For one, you are older than me so the timing is off, but if I need to warn others and at least educate them as to why your examples are horrible and no one should mirror them, then who's your DADDY!
> 
> And you really have to get off of thinking cops know anything about the law.


I've been sitting here waiting and can't believe it took you that long to come back with that. I knew that last reply would be hard to answer. You are a lot of fun. I am dead tired and need some sleep.

Catch you tomorrow evening.

Grandpa


----------



## griz (Nov 26, 2009)

TNTSERVICES said:


> ...And you really have to get off of thinking cops know anything about the law.


*Some cops* are quite knowledgeable about the law.... 

Just like there are knowledgeable and not so knowledgeable contractors...:thumbsup:


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

pcplumber said:


> I've been sitting here waiting and can't believe it took you that long to come back with that. I knew that last reply would be hard to answer. You are a lot of fun. I am dead tired and need some sleep.
> 
> Catch you tomorrow evening.
> 
> Grandpa


Working on quotes.

But I love every time you say this, I know that my work is done. :thumbsup:


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

griz said:


> *Some cops* are quite knowledgeable about the law....
> 
> Just like there are knowledgeable and not so knowledgeable contractors...:thumbsup:


Most are not knowledgeable about civil law, that's where this would land. They know enough to tell you it's a civil matter and not criminal.

But you are right, there are a few that have a good knowledge about the law.


----------



## illbuildit.dd (Jan 7, 2015)

Jaws said:


> Probably not worth sueing for 5k. Id definitely lien though, and i promise you making an enemy out of me will get old fast. Id screw that guy everywhere possible for the rest of my life. He'd be out a lot more than 5k for sure, probably in the first year.
> 
> How did you screw up the estimate?


You should search the internet for a skit done by a DJ years ago. 
The Greaseman- "Revenge on Phil Kronenberg"
The 7 or so minute version is the only one worth listening to. You'll love it.


----------



## griz (Nov 26, 2009)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Most are not knowledgeable about civil law, that's where this would land. They know enough to tell you it's a civil matter and not criminal.
> 
> But you are right, there are a few that have a good knowledge about the law.


More than you think have an excellent understanding of civil law.....

Just not where they want to be involved......

Rob, I have no intention of arguing this with you.....:thumbsup:

However, keep making your point on other posts in this thread...:thumbsup:


----------



## actforms (Jul 22, 2009)

pcplumber said:


> Not everything is in black and white. I would have a very good chance of winning in court when I remove materials from a home, or new construction and this depends on specific circumstances.
> 
> *Yes, it does depend on the circumstances, as I stated before, however, you have absolutely ZERO chance of winning in court under the circumstances you describe. The only way you could possibly justify removing a furnace that you installed in a home would be to remove the new furnace and re-install the old furnace EXACTLY like it was before you started. Not really do-able. *
> 
> ...


*The Government CANNOT dictate the laws the customer has to go by????? Wow, you have to be joking. And again, the law is clear, the waiver is only valid under emergencies. No one can prevent you from starting the job before the 3 day right to cancel expires under an invalid waiver but when you do... be prepared to do the job for free if the consumer later wants to cancel.*


----------



## Anti-wingnut (Mar 12, 2009)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Most are not knowledgeable about civil law


As are plumbers similarly lacking, especially those named pcp


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

griz said:


> More than you think have an excellent understanding of civil law.....
> 
> Just not where they want to be involved......
> 
> ...


You have a funny way of having no intention. The ones that I know, who are required to have at least a bachelors, have little to no interest in civil law. But to be sure I'll call a few tomorrow and see where they are.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

Anti-wingnut said:


> As are plumbers similarly lacking, especially those named pcp


I freely admit I don't "know" civil law, but I try to know what affects me directly.


----------



## Anti-wingnut (Mar 12, 2009)

I wasn't jumping your s****


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

Anti-wingnut said:


> I wasn't jumping your s****


Oh, I know. I was just submitting for the record that I am not claiming to be an arm chair lawyer. It was an attempt to make sure that I am not called a know it all. I just know it some.


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)




----------



## pcplumber (Oct 12, 2008)

actforms said:


> *The Government CANNOT dictate the laws the customer has to go by????? Wow, you have to be joking. And again, the law is clear, the waiver is only valid under emergencies. No one can prevent you from starting the job before the 3 day right to cancel expires under an invalid waiver but when you do... be prepared to do the job for free if the consumer later wants to cancel.*


Contractors have to abide by the laws that are written to protect the consumers. Consumers are not obligated by law to have to wait three days before they can do a job even when the job is not an emergency. If a homeowner wants any type of work performed they have the right to tell the contractor they do not want to wait three days and they can waive there 3-day waiting period. 

If I did not allow customers to waive their 3-day waiting period, even when jobs are not an emergency, I would lose several hundred thousand dollars every year. Consumers have the right to demand service WHEN THEY WANT IT and the government is going to have to challenge my customer's waivers and my methods in court. While I have not been challenged in court I have spoke not with one, but with several attorneys on this issue.

Unlike contractors who say they hire attorneys to give advice I really do. At this time, my attorney is going over my plumbing and new construction contracts and we do that every year.. He is looking into the laws regarding my company owning, buying, and creating smaller unlicensed companies. For example, is it legal to own several small companies that are not licensed as long as they do jobs for less that $500 and then advertised that these unlicensed companies are owned by my licensed company and even put my licensed company' license number in the advertisement. I don't see any reason why a licensed company cannot. My attorney is also going over our large 70-page underground utility contract with a magnifying glass. We will not sign a large contract without having our attorney review the contract. Then we tear the contract apart into smaller sections that are critical and we make a smaller contract where we focus on issues that apply to us.

i am very well-aware of the laws and you are almost 100% right. As smart as you are (and I think you are very smart) you should also understand that when a law is written the laws very seldom cover every circumstance and that is why laws are challenged in court. Contractor laws are always challenged in court and I have a book that contains about 1,000 contractor court cases. There are hundreds of cases that I disagree with and one example is where an apartment building owner, who did not live in the building, took the contractor to court and won over the 3-Day Right To Cancel because the judge said the apartment building was a Residence because people lived in the building. I disagree with that decision because the 3-Day Right To Cancel law was specifically designed to protect homeowners and NOT BUSINESSES. Owning an apartment building is a business and businesses do not get that same protection.

There are hundreds of contractor laws that need to be challenged and they will when someone like myself thinks that I am right and the law is wrong. Then, you can reap the benefits. Was Larry Flynt crazy when he was put in jail several times, challenged the 1st Amendment, won and was the only person to ever have the 1st Amendment changed.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

pcplumber said:


> Contractors have to abide by the laws that are written to protect the consumers. Consumers are not obligated by law to have to wait three days before they can do a job even when the job is not an emergency. If a homeowner wants any type of work performed they have the right to tell the contractor they do not want to wait three days and they can waive there 3-day waiting period.
> 
> They can tell you to start work before the 3 day period, but if they have a second thought, you, as the contractor, are screwed. They cannot waive their rights unless it is an emergency, PERIOD. Their rights are still there, and they can exercise them and there isn't a darn thing in the world that you can do about it legally. Even if you take them to court, you will end up losing. The courts don't care what waiver you had them sign. They will side with the consumer and believe that you coeerce them into signing the waiver. You can not legally sign away your rights. That is the definition of a right.
> 
> ...


So you admit, finally, that you are challenging the law, and therefore in violation of the law.

Now, was that so hard?:laughing:


----------



## TaylorMadeAB (Nov 11, 2014)

It seems to me that if you have multiple opportunities to repossess a clients materials, you're doing something wrong.


----------



## pcplumber (Oct 12, 2008)

TaylorMadeCon said:


> It seems to me that if you have multiple opportunities to repossess a clients materials, you're doing something wrong.


That is going to depend solely on the volume of business. If a mom & pop operation does a few jobs per year and they run a family-type operation then they will probably have zero occasions where repossession is necessary. When you do business $millions in business in this squirrel cage called Los Angeles then the stakes are higher. I have to either beat someone with my Mag flashlight of rip out my materials about once every 5 years over a 43 year period.


----------



## dom-mas (Nov 26, 2011)

I thought it was 60 years


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

dom-mas said:


> I thought it was 60 years


43-60...

But I am still waiting for some answers to my questions.


----------



## pcplumber (Oct 12, 2008)

TNTSERVICES said:


> 43-60...
> 
> But I am still waiting for some answers to my questions.


My business = 43 years. I always said 43 years.
I was referring to other businesses that use the Waiver Of Right To Cancel and they have been in business more than 60 years. I do not want to mention their name since the search engines will pull up the threads and I don't care to send an invitation to participate.

You see? I can cover my tracks very well.

Am I the forum's punching bag? I spend more time with you on this forum than I spend with my wife.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

pcplumber said:


> My business = 43 years. I always said 43 years.
> I was referring to other businesses that use the Waiver Of Right To Cancel and they have been in business more than 60 years. I do not want to mention their name since the search engines will pull up the threads and I don't care to send an invitation to participate.
> 
> You see? I can cover my tracks very well.
> ...


You said that you have been using waivers for 43 years. I asked why because the law is fairly new. You still haven't answered.

Your tracks are not covered. And if you keep showing up to the gym dressed as a punching bag the fighters are going to go to town.


----------



## rrk (Apr 22, 2012)

I can tell you first hand once items are installed in a building in NJ you are not allowed to take them out. The police really don't care what your story is when you are inside buildings without a key removing items. It was multiple buildings but I had no idea they were after me.

Happened a while ago but it cost my boss a lot of money putting everything back and he still did not get paid for the original amount.


----------



## pcplumber (Oct 12, 2008)

TNTSERVICES said:


> You said that you have been using waivers for 43 years. I asked why because the law is fairly new. You still haven't answered.
> 
> Your tracks are not covered. And if you keep showing up to the gym dressed as a punching bag the fighters are going to go to town.


I came to California in January of 1973, immediately started working for a plumbing contractor and that company had everyone use the Waiver Of Right To Cancel. Every word on the form is exactly the same as it was 43 years ago.

The laws state clearly that a person can waive their right to cancel when an emergency exists, but the $1 million question in a court would be how and what is considered an emergency based on each customer's needs, wants and opinions and not what the state dictates.

I received a telephone call yesterday, Friday evening, and a home had no how water. Their was five beautiful Japanese exchange students living in the house. The job was not an emergency because the Japanese girls were more than welcome to come to my place for their showers and I was daydreaming about handing them their towels. I would have even heated their water in pots, pans and poured it over them. But, my dream abruptly ended when the homeowner demanded that we install a new water heater, immediately. What a killjoy! I tried to tell him that the law would not allow such an insane decision without waiting three days.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

pcplumber said:


> I came to California in January of 1973, immediately started working for a plumbing contractor and that company had everyone use the Waiver Of Right To Cancel. Every word on the form is exactly the same as it was 43 years ago.
> 
> The laws state clearly that a person can waive their right to cancel when an emergency exists, but the $1 million question in a court would be how and what is considered an emergency based on each customer's needs, wants and opinions and not what the state dictates.
> 
> I received a telephone call yesterday, Friday evening, and a home had no how water. Their was five beautiful Japanese exchange students living in the house. The job was not an emergency because the Japanese girls were more than welcome to come to my place for their showers and I was daydreaming about handing them their towels. I would have even heated their water in pots, pans and poured it over them. But, my dream abruptly ended when the homeowner demanded that we install a new water heater, immediately. What a killjoy! I tried to tell him that the law would not allow such an insane decision without waiting three days.


If you say so. But I didn't think these laws were around that long.

Water heaters can be installed. It constitutes an emergency. I don't think your perversion had much ti do with this thread.

BTW here is what the law in California says about the waiver.

D. Waiver Generally Not Enforceable

Any waiver by the buyer of the Act's provisions, or any confession of judgment, is void and unenforceable.21

However, the buyer can waive the Act's protections in a real emergency where the buyer needs the goods or services immediately and cannot wait for the three-day cancellation period to end. All of the following must be true in order for such a waiver to be valid:

The contract must be for emergency or immediate necessity repairs or services which are necessary for the immediate protection of people or property; and,

The buyer, the buyer's agent, or the buyer's insurance representative, must have initiated the contract; and,

The buyer must give the seller a separate signed and dated personal statement which describes the situation, and which expressly acknowledges and waives the buyer's right to cancel.22 The buyer's personal statement must be in the buyer's own handwriting.23

It is pretty clear what is allowed.


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

Most guys here that want to start earlier, back date the contract.


----------



## pcplumber (Oct 12, 2008)

Californiadecks said:


> Most guys here that want to start earlier, back date the contract.


That was always on my mind,


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

pcplumber said:


> That was always on my mind, but when 'push come to shove' in a lawsuit you will be in even more trouble when the customer even mentions that you asked them to backdate the contract.
> 
> There is a mold lawsuit that is easy to find on the internet about Crenshaw Lumber in California. A homeowner was suing the lumber company for $2 million and the jury awarded the homeowner $11 million because Crenshaw lumber backdated their paperwork.
> 
> I've been to court many times (not always about business) and the way judges and arbitrators think is very strange when making decisions. I think they hear so much crap from both parties they become calloused and they take from both sides for the tiniest things just because the judges get tired of working with cases where people can't resolve their issues without taking up the court's time.


How do you prove a contract was back dated, Especially when there's only two people involved?


----------



## pcplumber (Oct 12, 2008)

Californiadecks said:


> How do you prove a contract was back dated, Especially when there's only two people involved?


I am surprised that the post was copied as fast as it was because I submitted it and deleted it in less than 2 seconds.

There are probably a thousand things that can prove that a contract was backdated i.e. the customer may be able to prove that at the time you claim they signed the contract or waiver the customer was in the hospital, out of town, shopping, they have text messages that prove the appointment time, statements from relatives, voice mail, caller ID, video cameras, nosy neighbors who know every time you arrive and leave, they have proof regarding the time they really did sign the waiver and contract and judges and arbitrators may believe that there is a little truth to everything. Especially, when you have two people (a husband and wife) arguing and adamantly saying that they are telling the truth.

I will bet you that the lumber company thought there was no way that someone would catch them backdating records. This case was supposed to settle for $2 million, but the lumber company had to pay $13 million because they backdated records. And...my memory is not that bad. Yesterday, I said the case was settled for $13 million and today the articles prove that my statement regarding the numbers was correct and not an exaggeration. 

The Gorman family filed a lawsuit against 18 companies claiming toxic mold in their new Manhattan Beach home caused brain damage in their infant son. The lawsuit also alleged Crenshaw improperly stored framing studs which grew mold and contaminated the custom built home. Ms. Gorman was pregnant with their son Kellen for three months while living in the house. They continued to live there for two years. Kellen, now five, suffers developmental problems and requires 24 hour care. Crenshaw has agreed to pay $13 million of the $22.6 million settlement. (Nov-04-05) [MERCURY NEWS] 

http://overlawyered.com/2005/11/kellen-gorman-v-crenshaw-lumber/

Three years ago, when he was 2, a medical exam discovered brain lesions on Kellen Gorman. His family blames “toxic mold” for his autism (though his two siblings weren’t affected) in the house, and sued 17 defendants—including the lumberyard that supplied the wood for the house. Six weeks into trial, the case has settled for $22.6 million and, amazingly, it’s the lumberyard that’s paying the bulk of it: $13 million, or more than $200,000 for each of its sixty employees. As it was, the lumberyard had hired seventeen experts to try the case, but had ten of them (including a toxicologist and microbiolgist) excluded when they missed a court-ordered deadline for disclosure. (The Gormans’ attorney, Brian Witzer, accuses a defense attorney of trying to backdate a document, and says he has filed ethical charges.) The Gormans already have plans for their millions: “We’ll tear [the house] down and take it to a hazardous waste dump and build a really nice house,” [Dana] Gorman said. “It will cost a lot to tear down and rebuild.” (Josh Grossberg, “Manhattan Beach family wins $22.6 million suit”, Los Angeles Daily Breeze, Nov. 7; NBC-4, Nov. 4). And if housing seems a bit more expensive in California, it’s because even the raw materials suppliers must purchase insurance against the risk of multi-million-dollar junk science verdicts.


----------



## actforms (Jul 22, 2009)

pcplumber said:


> Contractors have to abide by the laws that are written to protect the consumers. Consumers are not obligated by law to have to wait three days before they can do a job even when the job is not an emergency. If a homeowner wants any type of work performed they have the right to tell the contractor they do not want to wait three days and they can waive there 3-day waiting period.
> 
> *NO, NO NO! They can say what they want... doesn't matter! The law looks at it as though they are children and not responsible for their actions if they demand the work be done and assure you they will waive their rights... it DOES NOT MATTER! You are responsible not them! They lose nothing ... you do the job for free! CSLB is part of the Department of Consumer Affairs read CONSUMER... every rule you as a Contractor must abide by is designed entirely to protect the Consumer. Why do you think California enacted the laws regarding Service and Repair Contracts??? Continuing to do this and disregarding the waiver rules could potentially cost you EVERY SINGLE job you did from now on and IN THE PAST! Exactly the same situation that brought about the laws for Service and Repair! Every contract you have ever wrote and disregarded CA and Federal law even if completed 50 years ago... are fair game. Don't be stupid... the few people that demand the work be done and "waive" their rights when the law says they can't are NOT WORTH IT! *
> 
> ...


*This is all fine if you can pay an attorney to take your "personal principals" to court. Most contractors reading your words could not afford what you propose and could not afford putting their business in jeopardy over "principals" that are contrary to law. My father was just like you... every time he was "wounded" by a customer he would call our family friend and attorney and ask him about it and ask him if he could sue... let me tell you what the attorney would tell my father, he would say "You know me Bill... I'll defend you to your last dollar! Attorneys are in a business just like you with one very important exception... If you fail at the work you do... you are responsible and won't get paid... if they fail... they get paid ANYWAY! Always remember that when you talk to an attorney.*


----------



## Calidecks (Nov 19, 2011)

I'm talking about a customer back dating, not the contractor. I can't be responsible for what they write and send back to me via email.


----------



## pcplumber (Oct 12, 2008)

actforms said:


> *This is all fine if you can pay an attorney to take your "personal principals" to court. Most contractors reading your words could not afford what you propose and could not afford putting their business in jeopardy over "principals" that are contrary to law. My father was just like you... every time he was "wounded" by a customer he would call our family friend and attorney and ask him about it and ask him if he could sue... let me tell you what the attorney would tell my father, he would say "You know me Bill... I'll defend you to your last dollar! Attorneys are in a business just like you with one very important exception... If you fail at the work you do... you are responsible and won't get paid... if they fail... they get paid ANYWAY! Always remember that when you talk to an attorney.*


I think you are right! You make a lot of sense. I am crazy and should have listened to TNT the first time. I am in the middle of a few thing with my attorney and will bring this up with him again in the next few days.

I liked that and it was well-written.

Thank you very much.


----------



## carzie (May 21, 2013)

Once again a thread has turned into a cock fight between PCP and TNT....a note you two do not know everything, although you may think you do. Enough said I'm taking my ball and going to play else where.

For what it's worth I do believe the OP stated that his in his contract the price was for 50 sq...additional cost would be added for extra sq.


----------



## TNTRenovate (Aug 19, 2010)

carzie said:


> Once again a thread has turned into a cock fight between PCP and TNT....a note you two do not know everything, although you may think you do. Enough said I'm taking my ball and going to play else where.
> 
> For what it's worth I do believe the OP stated that his in his contract the price was for 50 sq...additional cost would be added for extra sq.


Wow! Thanks for that awesome contribution to the discussion. What a wanker.


----------



## littlefred811 (Dec 16, 2012)

Just saying.... LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6cxNR9ML8k


----------



## 480sparky (Feb 1, 2009)




----------



## carzie (May 21, 2013)

TNTSERVICES said:


> Wow! Thanks for that awesome contribution to the discussion. What a wanker.


Sorry to disappoint you Rob. 

I'm not familiar with the laws governing the area the OP is from so I have no advice I can offer.


----------

