Ok this is nothing more than a venting session ………..
It’s bad enough that the EPA has thier mitts on us now but I was talking to a buddie of mine.
He tells me that a local inspector now requires that you fill out a state contract with the homeowner which dictates your payment schedule. WHAT!!!?
I’m in central MASS has anyone heard of such a thing. I can’t think nor belive that this is legal. I know that you can’t ask for more than 1/3 up front upon signing the contract. That way if you take off to a sunny island you don’t have all of the money. I get that.
I never ask for any money until i am at their house ready to start work then I want money and on my terms period.
When i start a job i am there until it is done, then off to the next one. I know the inspector is just protecting the homeowner but i realy don’t think that he can mandate a state contract to superceed my contract with the homeowner.
Who the *!@#$% does this guy think he is anyway.
Sorry a bout the rant guys….. maybe it’s all this rain..
Replies
Have the inspector document that requirement.
I have not gone down to that inspector's offce yet to see what this contract is.
But i am meaning to becaue i have some possible projects coming up in that town and I'll be damned if he thinks I'm filling that out.
My buddy siad it is in the mass gov website and now this town has adopted it. I still don't get it.
like i said earlier. I'm just venting out of frustration that every tim i turn around the "MAN" is sticking it to us making it that much tougher to make a living. I really like doing this work and enjoy making things for people and making their homes better.
but boy I'm getting sooooooo tired of all the red tape.
ray....
do you use a contract ?
if not, why not ?
every job we do has a minimum one page contract...major jobs have more
i don't like the idea of bi's getting involved, but i bet he's getting direction from the local powers-that-be that part of his job is consumer protection
they do call us "contractors" don't they ?
Hey Mike
Yes i do have contracts with my clients and my usual contracts are 3 pages long sometimes more depending if the job requires it. I'm a good contractor and an Honest one at that. I'm just trying to make a living. so as i mentioned before i don't take any money from anyone until i'm on their door step with tools in hand. Now the only exception to that is if i have to order a special order item that requires me to give a deposit, then i ask my customer for one as well. i'ts only fair.
I just found myself very shocked at the sound of this whole thing. This particular inspector is know for this kind of power hungry condecending bull.
Well, now I'm really confused. Is it the EPA, the state, or this inspector who's requiring this horrible 1-page disclosure form?
It's the building inspector.
I'ts his little world and he wants to control it how he sees fit.
But you said it was a state form. You're mad at the building inspector because he's enforcing the law?
That's just it. I don't know if it is the law or one of his new pet peaves.
Either way i don't feel like the state can superceed my contract with the homeowner.
I have not seen what this contract looks like until i go see Mr. Wonderful about it.
Then i can see what all the fuss is about and really see what kind of action can be take if any.
I may go speek with a lawyer about it once i see it, if it appears to be less that legit.
Do you have any idea how common it is for contractors to take the HO's money and disappear? Thousands of cases every year, easily 100 thousand nationwide.
Very likely there were people lobbying your legislature to require ALL contractors to post a performance bond for EVERY job, but lobbyists for the state contractor's association talked them down from that to just requiring a disclosure form. Count yourself lucky.
If you feel this is imposing on your "rights", well then you have no inherent "right" to be a contractor -- you've got to follow the rules if you want to be one.
If you feel this is imposing on your "rights", well then you have no inherent "right" to be a contractor -- you've got to follow the rules if you want to be one.
Dan. I can't help but take offense by that statement. I think you are out of line with it as well.
I am one of the good guys here not some fly by night, tailgate warranty crook.
We are still missing a key piece of info here which is i have not seen this contract or disclosure form or whatever it is to determine what it is and what it really means. As soon as i see it then we can all have clearer view of the whole picture. Until then I am simply voicing an oponion of my disatisfaction with the notion of it's existence. nothing more.
I am one of the good guys here not some fly by night, tailgate warranty crook.
Yeah, obviously I was wrong. The crooks openly admit that they're dishonest, so there's no need to require EVERYONE to follow the rules, just those who admit they're crooks.
Yeah, obviously I was wrong.
Correct:)
And, I think it goes without saying, I wouldn't hire you to build a doghouse. With an attitude like yours I'd know I was getting screwed.
danh.....
i get the feeling you are reading ray wrong....
everything he has posted so far sounds pretty reasonable to me
if i were a homeowner i would certainly like to talk to him
ray.....
ok...asked and answered.... you do use a contract...
AND.... i don't want the bi intruding on my relationship with my customer either
does mass collect sales tax on construction ?
if this happened in ri, i would be on the phone to riba asking what is going on
do you belong to a builder's or remodler's association ?
Here's what I found with a quick google search, I have no idea if this is the form you're talking about. If it is, I can't imagine any legitimate builder complaining about it. Seems like a very straightforward contract. Kind of nice of them to provide a template for free, actually.
http://www.mass.gov/Eoca/docs/sampcont.pdf
k
edit: Actually, upon re-reading, I can see a gripe, in that it does not seem to allow for a time and materials job. But then, I just skimmed it. If that is the case, I wouldn't like it either. I think Pennsylvania may have a similar problem.
KFC
I went on the web earlier and that is all i found as well. It just seem to be a sample contract and not a requirement by all
So it seems. My buddy made it sound a lot worse I so went looking some more and found nothing other than that.
Who knows. until I see it for my self.
If in fact it is this form. I find it hard to believe that the inspector is requiring it when you have to submitt a copy of your contract with the permit app. Just seems a bit weird. In the end which contract holds up in a court of law?
My guess is the more restrictive one would (as long as all the restrictions and provisions comply with state law, of course). This really seems like a bare minimum which would have to be fleshed out for most jobs. I can see why a building official would insist that there be at least this much in writing- if a builder balks at filling this out, alarm bells should be going off in the homeowners mind, for sure.
What's your take on the t&m option?
k
K
I did'nt see a T&M option
K
I did'nt see a T&M option on the form but did you notice the statement in the middle
(the law forbids demanding full payment until the contract is completed to both party's satisfaction)
I don't know about you but I never put language like " owner's satisfaction" in any contract. You are just looking for trouble.
I the the owner says I don't like that or I'm not satisfied you are not getting your final payment.
Now I'm not saying that if I run into a problem on the back end of the job that I won't try to remdy the situation to ensure a happy customer. I'm just saying you have to be careful with the wording that is used so as not to leave yourself and your work open to subjective opinions as to quality of the work that has been done.
It seems to me that te sample contract is just that. the minimum that a homwowner should look for in a contract from someone they hire to perform work on their home. Thats fine with me.
I only have a problem if the form that my buddy spoke of really takes over legally with the payment schedule and makes my contract with the owner less enforceable. Right now I don't know that answer until i see the real thing in my hands. Maybe tomorrow if a have the chance to stop in and ask for a copy of it.
The only real payment stipulation I saw in the form was the "no more than 1/3" rule, which is well known state law anyway, I gather. (Out here it's $1000 or 10%, whichever is smaller).
I didn't really take not of the mutual satisfaction clause. Like I said, i just skimmed the form. I can see your point about "owner's satisfaction" to an extent. That could be entirely subjective, and be way beyond code or industry standards. Some people are just never satisfied, period. That said, It's been my experience that if a homeowner wants to hold up the final payment, they will, whether there's a clause allowing it or not... closing out a job to everyone's satisfaction is almost a political art form as much as it is a cut and dried completion of a set of tasks.
But, still, I can see how that clause could be worrisome, in that it appears to give unlimited legal discretion to the homeowner. Lemmee go back and read it. The devil's in the details, as they say.
k
edit: Ok, it does pretty much give legal weight to the homeowner's subjective "satisfaction". Could be an issue. I personally get almost all my work through word of mouth, which has two implications:
1) My clients are fairly well pre-screened to not be impossible-to-satisfy nut jobs or shysters,
and
2) Even if I feel like they're being unreasonable, i'll usually go the extra yard to satisfy them, just to protect my network (and because I run into these people all over town). I may never work for them again, but that's their loss...
Still, as far as that clause goes, I can see two ways to work with it. One, keep the amount to a level where it'll sting, but not ruin you. I didn't see anything saying it had to be such-and-such a % of the overall job. If it's $500 on a $10,000 job, and the HO's being a jerk, I'd let 'em keep it, and be glad to escape a fool. Secondly, I'd demand the homeowner sign the arbitration by builder's request, then if they're really being unreasonable, there's a third party that can weigh in and say so.
mandatory arbitration is one of our contract clauses... so i'm with you .... if the customer wouldn't sign the clause... i wouldn't do the contract...
AND... any reference to "satisfaction of the owner" would be struck we use "substantial completion" which has a legal meaning
"satisfaction of the owner" is one of those things that can trigger arbitration....so i would never sign a document that used that phrase
And it's subjective as well.
KFC, Yes PA is going thru..........
................some similar changes.
I'm not in business anymore but i do have a few friends who are.
Pa has gone from a "Build anything, anywhere, any way" state to one that requires permits and is attempting to adopt and enforce a standard code.
A few years ago New Jersey required every contractor to register and now PA s doing it as well.
There were also some changes in regards to things like contract and what is acceptable and what isn't.
Some of it is for the better. Before it was every man for himself.
Some of it is worse.
For example, where I live (Upper Macungie Township) some a$$monkey who writes little construction advice columns for the quarterly township newsletter, felt empowered enough a year or so ago to advise local residents that " No reputable contractor would EVER require a deposit" and "A contractor should expect and anticipate carrying materials costs for a job on his account until he's done"
I can only imagine what else is being thrown out there by the same clown. The same clown who now feels empowered by the new regulations.
Personally, I'm all for licensing and building codes
My beef with the PA contract law is that it makes all t&m work illegal (as I understand it- I freely admit that I haven't really studied it.). The mass. contract Raymond128 is talking about also seems to eliminate that option.
I can't even begin to comment on what that guy wrote in the paper- I wouldn't know where to begin.
k
I can't even begin to comment on what that guy wrote in the paper- I wouldn't know where to begin.
k
That's the problem. The guy who wrote that in the paper was one of our local building officials.
it's been my experience in the past that any law, regulation or code that involves the building trades and prompts this much debate?
Is ripe for abuse by the local building officials. New Jersey used to be lousy with building inspectors who made up there own rules and enforced them as they saw fit.
you could challenge them................and 99 tims out of 100 the state would side with the contractor..................which is really great until you have to pull another permit in that township.
First, it seems that this document is only for home improvement, not construction of new structures.
But that is a minor point. My reading is that it makes all home improvement contracts to be on a cost plus basis. Notice that it mentions the actual cost of special order materials. It also mentions under the permit section that the contractor is the agent of the property owner. As the agent, he works for and on behalf of the owner. There would be no reason to assume that other materials other than special order materials would not be furnished at anything other than actual cost. The same logic would apply to labor as well. Although I do not live in Massachusetts, I will bet that their lien laws also claim that subcontractors are also agents of the property owner. It is standard practice.
If anything, my objection would be that it seems to indicate that it could only be a cost plus fixed fee rather than a cost plus percentage. A fixed fee could be divided into thirds regardless of costs. But if the fee is 30% over costs, how would you know what the initial 10% is. In order to act as an agent, there must first be an agency contract. The only known fact would be that the fee would be 30% over and above the yet unknown costs. How do you divide into thirds an unknown quantity?
And if the property owner is the contractor does he have a contract with himself?
And what if the contractor is an employee, then what?
To give you an example of an employee contractor. Suppose the statute or ordinance requires any person, firm or corporation engaged in business as a carpentry contractor to designate in the application who shall be the supervisor of the work done by the licensee and the supervisor shall be the one who takes the licensing exam. Now suppose the statute or ordinance states that the supervisor qualifying for the license can be the person applying for the license or an employee of that person, a member of the firm applying or an employee of the firm, a corporate officer of the corporation applying or an employee of the corporation. It would certainly be unconstitutional to require someone who is not a contractor to take an examination for a contractor's license just as it would be unconstitutional for a state to require someone who is not a lawyer to pass the state bar exam to work at an occupation other than that of attorney. So when an employee is the qualifying party for the contractor's license, the employee is a contractor. It can be seen from the example given that every supervisor can choose to work alone and not be connected with a firm or corporation and also choose not to be an employee of a person, firm or corporation. That is the proof that a contractor is a supervisor.
Now suppose that in order to be the supervisor who qualifies for a license he must meet certain experience requirements. In my state, the carpentry supervisor must have four years' "practical or management" carpentry experience. Without such experience he cannot qualify for a carpentry contractor's license. In my state, when the contractor qualifying for the license is an employee, he is called by statute a "responsible managing employee". Once that employee decides to leave his employer, the employer's license is suspended until another supervisor qualifies for the license. Only supervisors can qualify for contractor licenses.