Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: Aase ruling

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Really good points Roger,
Let cover the last first - I believe you hit it on the nose when you said
"The fault might even be due to the owner's lawyer in not presenting
evidence to show that the owner actually had been damaged." I believe you
are right as do some of the others who knew of the cases. The Superior court
in pre-trial agreed to exclude the list of structural defects and known
building code violations. Other professionals I've spoken to claim the HOA's
attorney may have caved in on these issues and tried to prove his case by
siteing non-structural (cosmetic) damages that did exist - which may have
justified the issue regarding contractural or written warranties.
However, if this is what happened it still harms the homeowner or HOA by
preventing future cases which propose potential damage due to known defects
or code violations.

General Contractor comment - I do understand that the GC is the responsible
party, however, it has been my experience with many GC's who have hardly
worked in the business but who have prepared for the examination by taking
one of the preparatory courses that guarantee's passing and who have no real
knowledge of construction practice. They may have experience in coordination
to a minor degree, but my example was one such contractor who literally
could not interprete the details on his own and did not understand the
concept of a lateral load path (or gravity load path) as I believe they
should. This GC builds two or three homes at a time - large expensive homes
and explicit faith that his Framer can interpret drawings and do his job
without fault. In this one case, his framer is exceptionally good and I
enjoy working with him, however, without the framer, the GC could not step
in nor could he judge the quality of the next framer he wanted to hire. I
don't think this is proper training.

Dennis

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Turk [mailto:73527.1356(--nospam--at)compuserve.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 10:40 PM
> To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
> Subject: RE: Aase ruling
>
>
> Dennis Wish wrote:
>
> . > The GC should not be licensed to take the overall
> responsibility of the
> . > job unless he or she is pre-qualified and tested in each of the
> . > responsibilities of his sub-contractors.
>
> A General Contractor *is* responsible for the performance of his/her
> sub-contractors.  Whether a General performs 90 percent of the work on a
> project with his/her own forces or subcontracts *all* of the work to
> sub-contractors, the GC should have a project superintendent on the job
> site.  A good superintendent will be fully aware of the
> performance of all of
> the sub-contractors; a bad superintendent will overlook poor
> performance of
> the sub-contractors.  Subs are aware that future work is dependent on
> satisfying the GC, and will do the work required by the GC, or
> will correct
> work improperly done.  This is leverage that the average owner
> (or engineer)
> does not have.
>
> It is in boom times that the worst work is done.  The GC has a
> lot of work,
> and hires marginal or poor job superintendents for all the work
> the GC has.
> In lean times, the GC pares down his/her work force and keeps
> only the best,
> and only the minimum needed for the work underway.
>
> To me, there seems to be something missing in the Aase case as it
> is being
> discussed on the list.  It is my understanding that the legal
> definition of
> "damage" is not limited to physical damage, but can include
> monetary damage,
> value damage, and even prestige damage.  If there was only a charge of
> poor/bad workmanship, and the owner did not have to repair it, or if the
> value of the house did not diminish, or possibly other things,
> then the owner
> experienced no damage.  The fault might even be due to the
> owner's lawyer in
> not presenting evidence to show that the owner actually had been damaged.
>
> The case and the decision of the Superior Court which was upheld
> by appeals
> courts is very intriguing.  It would be interesting to read a
> legal analysis
> of the case which probably should already be available in legal
> publications.
>
> A. Roger Turk, P.E.(Structural)
> Tucson, Arizona
>