Verbal agreements

[sspence]

The question is simple. Does he have the right to charge twice the amount that I told him I wanted to spend? The conversations we had would not be in dispute unless one of us lied. The dispute is whether or not he had an obligation to inform me of the overage before he continued with the work. I feel he should have told me when he saw he could not get the job done for the amount that I had to spend. I then would have done something different. I surely would not have had him to continue knowing that I didn't have the money to pay him. I don't dispute whether or not he overcharged for the work. It may have been worth what he charged me. But the bottom line is I told him how much I had to spend. I specifically told him that I wanted to get as much done as I could for a set amount. I didn't give him the go ahead to rack up the time that he obviously did. I never said we would agree on everything only that the "FACTS" would not be in dispute.

 

[seniorjudge]

The question is simple. Does he have the right to charge twice the amount that I told him I wanted to spend? The conversations we had would not be in dispute unless one of us lied. The dispute is whether or not he had an obligation to inform me of the overage before he continued with the work. I feel he should have told me when he saw he could not get the job done for the amount that I had to spend. I then would have done something different. I surely would not have had him to continue knowing that I didn't have the money to pay him. I don't dispute whether or not he overcharged for the work. It may have been worth what he charged me. But the bottom line is I told him how much I had to spend. I specifically told him that I wanted to get as much done as I could for a set amount. I didn't give him the go ahead to rack up the time that he obviously did. I never said we would agree on everything only that the "FACTS" would not be in dispute.

Of course, this is the first time you brought up all this.

Since you did not keep a running tab on the guy and since you think that it may be worth what he charged you, then you owe the money.

If you go into small claims court, his testimony will be that he did the work and you agree. His testimony will further be that the work he did cost so much money and you agree. Finally, his testimony is that the work is what you wanted and was worth every dime he charged and you agree that it was what you wanted but maybe it was not worth what he charged.

Decision: you pay.

Of course, my opinion is based solely on hearing several thousand small claims cases over the past few decades so I doubt that I know what I am talking about.

 

[sspence]

First time I brought it up? It was all covered in my first post. You were just too hung up on insisting that someone would be lying. It seems all your experiance has caused you to lose faith in your fellow man. I totally respect the fact that you've been involved in thousands of small claims cases. But suppose I go into a full service gas station and tell the attendant that I want $10 worth of gas because that's all the money that I have. He begins filling up the tank. Am I required to continually ask him how much he has put in so far. If he fills up the tank, am I obligated to pay him? That would be a really good way to sell a lot of gas. By the same token, if the excavator was short on work, he could simply keep working and charge however much he wanted to. Unless the customer is sitting there watching him all day, how is he to know how many hours he has worked? Does the fact that I specifically told him how much I wanted to spend not carry any legal weight at all? I'm sorry, but that seems ludacris.

 

[I AM ALWAYS LIABLE]

First time I brought it up? It was all covered in my first post. You were just too hung up on insisting that someone would be lying. It seems all your experiance has caused you to lose faith in your fellow man. I totally respect the fact that you've been involved in thousands of small claims cases. But suppose I go into a full service gas station and tell the attendant that I want $10 worth of gas because that's all the money that I have. He begins filling up the tank. Am I required to continually ask him how much he has put in so far. If he fills up the tank, am I obligated to pay him? That would be a really good way to sell a lot of gas. By the same token, if the excavator was short on work, he could simply keep working and charge however much he wanted to. Unless the customer is sitting there watching him all day, how is he to know how many hours he has worked? Does the fact that I specifically told him how much I wanted to spend not carry any legal weight at all? I'm sorry, but that seems ludacris.

My response:

We're going around in circles on this situation. The fact is, you don't have anything in writing. You'll say you never authorized the amount, and he'll say you did. The proof will be the value of the work done. You have nothing to persuade the judge to believe you, or to tip the scales in your favor.

He'll say, "Why would I use $30,000.00 worth of material and time for only $15,000.00?" The judge will say, "You know, that makes sense. Judgment for Plaintiff contractor."

Start opening your purse.

IAAL

P.S. And next time (if there is a "next time") don't hide your State name somewhere in the body of your post. There's a reason why the State name question appears where it does - - so people don't have to go hunting for it.

 

[sspence]

Your right. We're going around in circles. He would have to lie if he says I authorized the amount. You keep assuming that he is going to lie. Try making a different assumption. Assume that he admits that I told him that $15K was all I wanted to spend. He now would have to justify continuing to work beyond that point. Let's suppose he stands in front of a judge.
Judge: "Did Mr. X tell you that he only had $15K to spend on this job?"
Contractor: "Yes"
Judge: "Why didn't you stop when you reached that point or communicate to Mr. X that it was going to take more than $15K to finish the job?"
Contractor: " I thought he wanted to get the job done?
At that point, he can't argue that he thought money was no object. He admits to being given a limit. I honestly don't see a difference between this and the situation I mentioned in my last post concerning the gas station attendant. I would respectfully ask for someone to explain the difference to me.
As for the name of the state that I'm in, I guess I was guilty of my own assumption. I assumed the post would be read and the inference would be noted. I sincerely apologize.

 

[seniorjudge]

Your right. We're going around in circles. He would have to lie if he says I authorized the amount. You keep assuming that he is going to lie. Try making a different assumption. Assume that he admits that I told him that $15K was all I wanted to spend. He now would have to justify continuing to work beyond that point. Let's suppose he stands in front of a judge.
Judge: "Did Mr. X tell you that he only had $15K to spend on this job?"
Contractor: "Yes"
Judge: "Why didn't you stop when you reached that point or communicate to Mr. X that it was going to take more than $15K to finish the job?"
Contractor: " I thought he wanted to get the job done?
At that point, he can't argue that he thought money was no object. He admits to being given a limit. I honestly don't see a difference between this and the situation I mentioned in my last post concerning the gas station attendant. I would respectfully ask for someone to explain the difference to me.
As for the name of the state that I'm in, I guess I was guilty of my own assumption. I assumed the post would be read and the inference would be noted. I sincerely apologize.

The moral of this story is that YOU have to keep an eye on contractors. Even if.


Judge: "Did Mr. X tell you that he only had $15K to spend on this job?"

Contractor: "Yes"

Judge: "Why didn't you stop when you reached that point or communicate to Mr. X that it was going to take more than $15K to finish the job?"

Contractor: " I thought he wanted to get the job done?"

Judge: "Did you, in fact, finish the job?"

Contractor: "Yes."

Judge: "Is what you charged the same or similar that others in your line of work would have charged in this area?"

Contractor: "It is."

Judge: "Okay, sspence, did contractor indeed finish this work?"

sspence: "Yes."

Judge: "So let me get this straight: you have $30,000 worth of work on your place but you only want to pay $15,000 for it, correct?"

sspence: "That is correct. BUT [gives gas station example]."

Judge: "sspence, are you trying to tell this court that if you go to a gas station and ask for $10 worth of gas but you get $30 worth of gas that you do not have to pay for the gas that you got?"

sspence: "Yes."

Judge: "Let me give you a fact of life: if you get the benefit of something that you did not pay for but you use it or intend to use it--such as the gas example you gave--then you must pay for it. In other words, you lose. Pay Contractor."

Bailiff calls next case.

 

[sspence]

Thank you. Now we're getting somewhere. Let's correct a couple of things and then see what you think.

Judge: "Did you, in fact, finish the job?"

Contractor: "Yes." (Actually he didn't as I pointed out in my first post. I've had another contractor to come in to give me a bid to finish the job. His Bid was $7500 with the largest part of fixing what wasn't done in the first place. Remember, the water has risen now to the point that part of the land to be cleared is under water. So, the water has to be pumped out and additional work has to be done in order to finish the job)

Judge: "Okay, sspence, did contractor indeed finish this work?"

sspence: "Yes." (No, as previously stated)

Judge: "So let me get this straight: you have $30,000 worth of work on your place but you only want to pay $15,000 for it, correct?" (As I stated, I paid him $21K, $6K more than I told him I would. Whether or not it was $30K worth of work I guess would be a matter to be determined as I can't say one way or the other. Definately not in my opinion)

As for the gas station example. The gas can be removed from the vehicle(drastic measure!) if need be. You can't undo the excavating work. A person has the option of not keeping something such as gas, but I don't have that option for the work done. If I did, I would simply say,"Take it back, I don't want it".

If your previous opinion is correct, He could keep working as long as he wanted to. Say," It's going to be close" as many times as I ask him. And then charge me whatever hours he racks up. Remember, I ask him when he was well into the project, "Are you going to be able to do this for $15K?" And his exact words were, "It's going to be close.

Now, given all the information that you have, if you still say that I don't have any choice but to pay, I'll accept your opinion and go on from there. But, I won't accept it as being fair.

Thank you for the opportunity to debate this with you.
By the way, I have an appointment with a lawyer this afternoon. If you like, I'll post his opinion on the matter.

 

[seniorjudge]

...By the way, I have an appointment with a lawyer this afternoon. If you like, I'll post his opinion on the matter....

This is the best thing you posted yet.

Tell us the results after you go to court.

 

[sspence]

Had a meeting with a lawyer yesterday. He advised that I should not pay any more money. He said I should speak with the contractor and try to work it out but if he still insisted that I owe him then he'd have to take me to court.
Met with the contractor today. Told him my position and that I had talked with an attorney. I did however offer to split the difference in the bill. I asked for $15K worth of work and he charged $30K, so I offered to pay $22.5K. At first, he agreed but then changed his mind. He did however admit to recalling the conversation about the limit that I set. I also taped our conversation. I don't know how to be anymore fair than that. But at least now he can't deny the facts since he admitted to knowing and understanding the limit and it's on tape. If we go to court, I'll post the outcome. By the way, it would not be a small claims court due to the amount in dispute.