Quick contract question

[goreblast]

Got double glazing. Everything (except one thing) is done, lots of things done very badly, and the fitter is a messy soandso (sealant everywhere). Have retained about 5% and communication etc has broken down. Broken deadlines etc and we are planning on keeping this money.

The contract which we agreed when we started has two parts for signing at the bottom of the page. For some reason the double glazing bloke signed and dated the box which clearly states "The Customer" and therefore I signed and dated the box "Company Representative". Does this in itself make a contract invalid?

 

[wedgie]

Technically it probably does.

 

[sativa]

No, indeed a contract can exist without any signatures.

On another note, your holding of 5% retention may still be valid, independent of the contract because the work, as you say, is shoddy. Get the guy around a table and negotiate a solution - either he sorts the work or you keep the money etc.

 

[Brizzles]

If the service provided is sub standard then i would do exactly as you have done and withhold payment.

Any product or service should be " of merchandable (?) quality ".

Good Luck to you.

 

[Geoff]

Any product or service should be " of merchandable (?) quality ".

An out of date, and rather obscure, term. The amended act now requires "satisfactory" quality which, while still deliberately very much open to interpretation, is a rather clearer statement of the expected and anticpated standard. Oh, and you spelling was close, but it was "merchantable", by the way.

However, the merchantable quality phrase you quote refers to the Sale of Goods Act and what's at fault here seems to be the standard of work, not the supply of goods. There are similar protections, based on The Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, which essentially requires that tradesmen exercise dure care to provide a proper standard of work, on a reasonable timescale and for a reasonable charge. That, as you can see, leaves plenty of wiggle room.

What I'd suggest goreblast do is to try to get the original workman to a meeting, at which concerns and shortfalls are listed (and confirmed in writing), and to get agreement that they will be corrected, and a timetable for the work to be done.

If the workman won't agree, or won't even meet, then you inform them that unless they do this work within a specified (but reasonable) period, you will have no choice but to seek quotes from other traders to complete and rectify the work, and that you will be applying the retention money towards any such costs, and reserve the right to pursue the original workman through the small claims court should the cost of substitute tradesmen exceed the money you have retained.

Essentially, any workman is working under a contract and that implies a reasonable standard of work. If it isn't reasonable, then you should give them reasonable chance to address the problems, but if they don't, or won't, you are entitled to get someone else to complete the job and expect the one that goofed to pay for it.

Essential to that process, if it may end up in court, is :-

• that you have acted reasonably
  
  
• that the first workman has been given adequate chance to react
  
  
• an ability to demonstrate that you had a specified list of issues and that he knew what they were (so do it in writing)
  
  
• preferably, evidence of why the standard was not adequate (photos can help a lot)
  
  
• a willingness to pursue this, through the courts if necessary
  
  
• finally, a workman that you can both locate ... i.e. not an itenerant worker of "no fixed abode", and one with the ability to actually pay up if a court orders it. There isn't much point pursuing someone who can't actually pay what he's ordered to pay, or will vanish abroad if pushed too hard.