For those of you that read or responded to the initial post….
Now that my builder has agreed to return the attic trusses with the 7′ headroom, and get the other trusses with ~7’8″ headroom, he wants to charge me more money. He claims that the other trusses cost more, which they do, so that he will need to pass that charge along to me. Our initial agreement was to make this “finishable” space for the future. Obviously I am not a builder and do not know all of the various code requirements that need to be met for living space, that is HIS job, and he should have made sure that he was getting the proper truss for the job and charge accordingly. I feel that I did my part in letting him know exactly what I wanted up front, and should pay no extra charge. This is not a “cost plus” type of contract, everything is fixed price……if wood costs more when he goes to purchase it, he will have to absorb that extra expense.
Who is right here, and what would be my best approach to the builder so as not to create tension?
Replies
Stick to your guns. He screwed up and should live with it, just as you will have to live with all of the shortcuts he will have to take to recover his loss!
This isn't a contest; it's a cooperative venture. If you try to make him eat the loss, you could welll pay in all sorts of unimaginable ways. Be sensible!
Bob, that's a bit of a contradiction isn't it? You said "stick to your guns" then you said "be sensible" and if I make him "eat it" I will pay for it in all kinds of unimaginable ways. I guess I'm not so sure of what your suggestion is here.
Is this really how builders work? .......shortchange clients in areas where they wouldn't even know about it to compensate for mistakes that they have made? Doesn't sound like a good practice to me, seems like a surefire way to get a bad reputation and lose potential customers. I do hope that this is not the case.
If your builder had known up front that more expensive trusses were needed he would have charged you for them on the original estimate and you would have paid it anyway. So why not pay it now and maintain a good relationship him. I dont think your being gouged by the builder, rather your being asked to pay for your materials.
john
I am trying to be reasonable about this, and wish to keep a good relationship with him however....
Is it not his responsibility to stick to the contract? I feel like I will be paying another $700 for something that I already paid for. In my business, you have a contract and that's that. I'm having some difficulty biting the bullet on this one. It's one thing if I wanted to change a feature of the building, such as adding a window or door, but I have not made any changes, I just want what we had agreed on, for the price we agreed on.
I can't find a quick reference for the code on ceiling heights
In some places their are minimum heights
are there any in your location?boblVolo Non Voleo 9Joe's cheat sheet
yes, 7' 6" minimum
Unit price contracts are not common in residential and light commercial building, so it is unlikely you have a set material price. Also, if a minimum height was required, the actual dimension should have been spec'd in the contract. Should the contractor have ordered the deeper trusses? Maybe. But that won't hold in small claims (and $700 is not worth the stress). Offer to at least split the difference with the contractor on this one. You don't want him making up the $ while sheathing, do you? ...that's not a mistake, it's rustic
If the agreement was that the space be "finishable" and if the code requires the height to be 7'6" in "finished" space, isn't the builder required to have a ceiling height that will meet code?
If the builder is going to take shortcuts to "make up" the $700, then I would guess he is already cutting corners. (this is a new house/as I recall) oops a garage
If the agreement is interpretable (finishable space) then that is a different story.
boblVolo Non Voleo 8Joe's cheat sheet
Edited 3/27/2002 1:50:23 PM ET by bobl
I didn't see the original post but this would be an interesting case here in NJ. The question is who has responsibility for the construction plans? It can't be the builder here (not allowed to do construction plans). It's not uncommon here for the owner to sign plans not done by an architect, therefore indicating that they were prepared 'under his/her direct supervision' - ie they take responsibility. Obviously this varies from state-to-state, with some areas not even requiring permits.
The key word on the space is not 'livable' but 'habitable' which connotes a specific use. There are spaces that are allowed to have 7' ceiling heights under certain conditions and for certain uses (see CABO 1 and 2 family code, if applicable). The use also comes into play with respect to floor loading - an unfinished attic (what your space 'looks' like) can have a 20 PSF live load rating and therefore a smaller truss bottom chord. A habitable room may be 40 PSF live load and would therefore up the size of the bottom chord costing more money.
Under the circumstances described IMO you owe the builder the difference unless you had a more specific agreement on what was to happen here.
T. Jeffery Clarke
Quidvis Recte Factum Quamvis Humile Praeclarum
that's what I was trying to say, but much better said.
except the last sentence. Which I don't necessairly disagree with.
all the related facrts are not available.
boblVolo Non Voleo 8Joe's cheat sheet
Edited 3/27/2002 1:55:22 PM ET by bobl
I agree that all the facts aren't known. There's a big difference between saying 'someday I might want to finish this space' and 'this will be developed as a bedroom in the future - make sure it complies with all relevant requirements.' These different understandings would have different results on construction plans.
Another side of this is the apparent fact that it will be living space over a garage, which requires a 1-hour fire rating in most code jurisdictions. This goes to plan specificity as well - can the 1-hour requirements be met later, if they are not met under present conditions?
These are design/construction plan issues - who took responsibility?
T. Jeffery Clarke
Quidvis Recte Factum Quamvis Humile Praeclarum
Edited 3/27/2002 2:08:53 PM ET by Jeff Clarke
the more I think about this the more I think he should pay the $700 based on the minimal info availableboblVolo Non Voleo 8Joe's cheat sheet
I guess there is some room for interpretation here. I do believe, however, that the builder knew specifically what my intentions where for this space, as we had discussed it on numerous occasions. I guess I would be willing to take a small portion of the fault here, as I did not educate myself about the building code requirements until I noticed that the opening looked rather small. At the same time, should this be my duty to make sure that he puts full egress windows in the bedrooms?.....to calculate out the 5.7ft2 minimum opening?.....or to check that the electrician has installed according to code?
What about a few weeks down the road when he discovers that the oak stair treads are more expensive than he planned?and then the roofing is under priced? Do I get charged for these also?
I realize that I am overexaggerating here, just trying to make my point. I guess I should also mention that this is a turnkey deal, and that I made a great effort to get all building details spelled out in the contract, but it is impossible to cover everything.
Splitting the difference may be an option, but only to salvage the relationship.
IMO the issue of 'design now for future use' is a special case that goes beyond something as simple as whether the cost of oak goes up or not. It also goes beyond what I would consider to be (at least in this locality) typical builder responsibility, unless that responsibility was fully and appropriately assigned to the builder in your Agreement.T. Jeffery Clarke
Quidvis Recte Factum Quamvis Humile Praeclarum
Entropy, my first parafraph was meant to be tongue in cheek.
Only you can judge whether the contract / agreement was clear and whether the contractor will step up to the plate if it was.
In my experience, too much attention is paid to Who's right /who's wrong and not enough to how can we resolve this so no one feels screwed.
Any trade will seek to recover losses in one part of a deal with "efficiencies" and economies in another. Its called human nature.
As some have said, all the facts may not be known, or immediately obvious.
"Finishable" space is not necessarily "liveable" space.
Maybe the contractor was under the 'mistaken' impression that the space was to be possibly 'finished' at a later time, to be used for storage space ??? None of us were there to hear what you told the contractor the space would be used for.
A 7 foot cieling is perfectly acceptable for a storage area.
You asked for the change, pay for it.
As for other things down the line, same applies. If you ask for a change, then be willing to pay for it. If he complains about something being more expensive than he had thought, tough crunchies, if it was what was agreed to, he will have to do it. eg, if the agreement said oak treads, he does oak treads, whether he likes the cost or not. But if you ask for something else that costs more, you pay for the change. If you decide that you want oak risers as well, and oak risers were not sepecified, but you just assumed they would be included, you should pay for the risers.
I will attempt to split the difference with him. I feel that is the most fair course of action here. As far as him not know my intentions for the space, we had discussed it be finishable for a bedroom. In his defense, he is not here to give his side of the deal, but I do not think that he would not deny us discussing that.
Also, as to "you made a change, now pay for it", this is not altogether true. Yes, I made a change, I made hundreds of changes, and fully expect to be charged for any NEW changes that I make, but that is not the case here. This "change" was nothing new and was discussed far in advance of the contract.
If nothing else, this provides more reason to be thorough when reviewing the contract, prior to building (which I had thought I was). I have learned something at least.
Thanks for the feedback guys.
"This "change" was nothing new and was discussed far in advance of the contract."
"we had discussed it be finishable for a bedroom"
'Discussing' it leads to misunderstandings without having it in writing. As you say...
"If nothing else, this provides more reason to be thorough when reviewing the contract, prior to building (which I had thought I was). I have learned something at least."
Only too true. This is what I was thinking before, and didn't write because I felt like I was already unintentionaly coming off in too harsh a tone.
My name is Luka.
My bad. I assumed the space would be used for an office. The truss linked in the original post met the minimum clearance and load requirements for a storage or sleeping space. An active space, such as an office, library, media room, etc. would require a higher bottom chord capacity and possibly taller headroom. Therefore, unless a minimum ceiling height was specified, the contractor met his obligation with the original trusses....that's not a mistake, it's rustic