# Breach of Contract



## Chad Coffelt (Aug 7, 2019)

https://www.natlawreview.com/articl...terial-breach-solely-building-code-violations


----------



## jar546 (Aug 7, 2019)

Chad Coffelt said:


> https://www.natlawreview.com/articl...terial-breach-solely-building-code-violations



How about posing a question or starting a discussion please.


----------



## ADAguy (Aug 7, 2019)

Return to Hammarabi


----------



## e hilton (Aug 7, 2019)

Interesting article.  Maybe not truly appropriate for this forum, but this section is “off topic posts” and does relate to codes.  Certainly no more non-centric than a discussion about chinese drywall.  (But that was worth reading too).


----------



## e hilton (Aug 7, 2019)

Actually ... there are better explanations of that case, like this one:
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...e+Mechanics+Inc.+v.+Massey,&hl=en&as_sdt=4,15 

Overall it sounds like a poor contractor who tried to sham a home owner, and got caught.  Here are some of the problems that inspectors found:
• nails sticking through the underlayment;• the underlayment was not covering the roof completely;• cuts had been made to the underlayment;• ice and water shields were improperly installed;• ice and water shields had been cut, torn, and wrinkled;• no drip edge on eaves;• nails blown through shingles;• nails driven at an angle through shingles;• improperly flashed dormer walls;• double layer of shingles;• improperly nailed flashings;• improper use of old flashing that had holes;• shingles were cut;• decking was blown apart by air gun;• shingles hanging over too far on eaves;• shingles nailed in wrong location;• siding damage on north side of house;• drive way dammed; and• failure to follow installation instructions of all roofing materials.


----------



## JCraver (Aug 8, 2019)

e hilton said:


> Actually ... there are better explanations of that case, like this one:
> https://scholar.google.com/scholar_...e+Mechanics+Inc.+v.+Massey,&hl=en&as_sdt=4,15
> 
> Overall it sounds like a poor contractor who tried to sham a home owner, and got caught.  Here are some of the problems that inspectors found:
> • nails sticking through the underlayment;• the underlayment was not covering the roof completely;• cuts had been made to the underlayment;• ice and water shields were improperly installed;• ice and water shields had been cut, torn, and wrinkled;• no drip edge on eaves;• nails blown through shingles;• nails driven at an angle through shingles;• improperly flashed dormer walls;• double layer of shingles;• improperly nailed flashings;• improper use of old flashing that had holes;• shingles were cut;• decking was blown apart by air gun;• shingles hanging over too far on eaves;• shingles nailed in wrong location;• siding damage on north side of house;• drive way dammed; and• failure to follow installation instructions of all roofing materials.



The yellow ones aren't code violations. 

I'm not doubting that this guy probably did some shoddy work on this customers house, but you'd think the inspectors and/or the lawyers would only take legit violations in front of a judge.


----------



## Rick18071 (Aug 8, 2019)

I wonder how this would work in my state where the state code says no code requirements  required just for roof covering.


----------



## my250r11 (Aug 8, 2019)

JCraver said:


> The yellow ones aren't code violations.



Doesn't meet manu. inst. instructions. Damaged shingles are not and do not meet the requirement for new or reusable.


----------



## tmurray (Aug 8, 2019)

JCraver said:


> The yellow ones aren't code violations.
> 
> I'm not doubting that this guy probably did some shoddy work on this customers house, but you'd think the inspectors and/or the lawyers would only take legit violations in front of a judge.


In this case, it was not the AHJ taking him to court. It was the contractor taking the home owner to court for enforcement of the mechanics lien. The homeowner was counter-suing for breach of contract. The homeowner's lawyer is going to throw everything, including the kitchen sink, at the contractor to demonstrate that they were clearly negligent of their duties under the contract.


----------



## e hilton (Aug 8, 2019)

tmurray said:


> It was the contractor taking the home owner to court .


And the contractor A: spent more in legal fees than it would have cost to redo the whole roof and B: ended up getting a whole lot of bad press.   I wonder if this will affect his license renewal, and bonding capability.  Probably not, he will close down and reopen under a new name.


----------



## BLangley (Aug 9, 2019)

Whole bunch of lawyers getting some extra billable hours to update contracts to have some sort of safeguard to make corrections after inspections so the contractor doesn't get jammed up like this one.


----------



## my250r11 (Aug 9, 2019)

e hilton said:


> And the contractor A: spent more in legal fees than it would have cost to redo the whole roof and B: ended up getting a whole lot of bad press



That is right, some day they may learn.


----------

