In New Zealand, condo's, or apartments as they call them down under, have a Ministry of Justice Weathertight Homes Tribunal they can turn to for help in leaky building problems.
Read this article on a long drawn out case over leaky decks and buildings...
The experts on pedestrian traffic coatings brings you the information you need on one website! We have information on all pedestrian traffic coatings manufacturer's, including Pli-Dek, West Coast Specialty Coating Systems, Desert Brand, Life Deck, Tufflex, Mer-Kote and Dex-O-Tex systems. Browse our website for articles, videos, news stories and more. We'll be updating and adding more pages soon so bookmark this site and come back and visit!
Monday, May 12, 2008
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Interesting Arbitration in Oregon and another reason why all contracts need to be in writing
Here's an interesting case that was arbitrated up in Oregon, but should serve as a lesson learned for all of us to establish a written contract, a scope of work and a written warranty that combined with proper construction techniques, will hopefully allow you to avoid a huge headache on a million dollar home being built. Click the headline to go to the webpage where the whole dcument is to read it all...
Sometime in February 2004, the parties entered into a verbal contract. Neither party recalls the exact date of the contract or the specific terms of their agreement. When presented with a verbal contract, it is not possible; without a detailed, accurate presentation of the contractual agreement; for a fact finder to fully and accurately determine the specifics of the parties’ promises; their performance; and the extent of their compliance or breach, which ever the case may be. The only provisions of the verbal contract for which the parties provided credible evidence were that the claimant agreed to provide a waterproof membrane on a deck and that in return the respondent agreed to pay $980. The evidence in the record supports, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claimant provided a waterproof membrane on a deck and that the respondent paid the claimant in full. Neither party breached the only contract provision that the parties were capable of recalling with credibility.
IMPROPER WORK
The claimant contracted with the respondent to have a waterproof membrane installed on a deck. The claimant explained to the respondent that the deck area would eventually be covered with concrete. The respondent informed the claimant that the waterproof membranes he installed were designed to be open and exposed to the elements as roofing material for flat or low-sloping roofs; he had no experience, prior to working with the claimant, installing a waterproof membrane under a concrete slab. The claimant told the respondent to, “Do whatever it is you do.” The claimant also told the respondent in the same conversation, “not to worry because concrete does not leak.” After a leak was discovered and both parties investigated, they learned that, in cases where concrete is going to cover a waterproof membrane, industry standards require that the membrane itself curve up or “flash” the vertical wall for a distance of at least eight inches. In this case, it did not. In addition, they learned that industry standards require that a protective layer or “protection board” separate the waterproof membrane and the concrete. In this case, it did not. Neither was aware of these requirements prior to the work being performed, nor did the claimant require that the respondent adhere to those standards at the time of performance. Yet the claimant contends that the respondent should be solely responsible for improper work. The claimant’s contention is in error. The claimant directed the respondent to “do what it does” to install a waterproof membrane. The respondent did exactly that. The claimant did not ask or direct the respondent to investigate the procedure for placing a waterproof membrane under a concrete slab. In fact, the claimant implied by its statement—don’t worry, concrete doesn’t leak—that it did not require the respondent to do anything other than that which it regularly did when installing waterproof membranes on a roof.
The claimant served as the general contractor for the residence constructed at 1949 Cheryl Court, Lake Oswego, Oregon. The claimant visited the site daily. As of the date of the hearing, the claimant had been working in the Lake Oswego area as a general contractor for over 36 years. The house the claimant constructed is valued at over $1,000,000. Taking all of these factors in consideration, the claimant knew, or should have known, that it was ultimately responsible for quality and workmanship. Nevertheless, the claimant inspected the respondent’s work and made payment-in-full without ever mentioning improper work. What’s more, the respondent’s work was open for inspection and viewing by the claimant for a period in excess of four months. During that time, the claimant did not raise the issue of improper work. Without any indication that the respondent’s work was improper, the claimant directed another subcontractor to pour concrete over the respondent’s work, making any necessary repairs to the respondent’s work exponentially more difficult and costly. Therefore, the claimant alone bears the responsibility for the high cost to make repairs.
The claimant contracted with a concrete subcontractor to pour a slab of concrete over the respondent’s waterproof membrane. The waterproof membrane was flashed to a height of no more than three inches. The subcontractor poured a 4.5 inch slab. Industry standards require that concrete pours not exceed the height of any flashing. The concrete contractor’s work was improper. What’s more, it is highly likely that the fact that the concrete rose above the flashing contributed, if not caused, the leak at issue.
Finally, during the period between the installation of the waterproof membrane and the discovery of a leak, several intervening events took place, any of which could have either caused or contributed to the leak. Construction workers walked and performed construction work directly on the waterproof membrane, concrete was poured directly on top of the membrane without the benefit of a protective barrier, and the claimant removed and replaced a post that had been flashed by the respondent. The claimant’s evidence did not eliminate any of the above factors as the cause of the leak. Similarly, the claimant failed to establish that the respondent’s work was either the sole or a significant cause of the leak. Rather, the claimant proved only that the respondent’s work was one of several possible causes of the leak.
Read it all, click the headline!
BREACH OF CONTRACT
Sometime in February 2004, the parties entered into a verbal contract. Neither party recalls the exact date of the contract or the specific terms of their agreement. When presented with a verbal contract, it is not possible; without a detailed, accurate presentation of the contractual agreement; for a fact finder to fully and accurately determine the specifics of the parties’ promises; their performance; and the extent of their compliance or breach, which ever the case may be. The only provisions of the verbal contract for which the parties provided credible evidence were that the claimant agreed to provide a waterproof membrane on a deck and that in return the respondent agreed to pay $980. The evidence in the record supports, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the claimant provided a waterproof membrane on a deck and that the respondent paid the claimant in full. Neither party breached the only contract provision that the parties were capable of recalling with credibility.
IMPROPER WORK
The claimant contracted with the respondent to have a waterproof membrane installed on a deck. The claimant explained to the respondent that the deck area would eventually be covered with concrete. The respondent informed the claimant that the waterproof membranes he installed were designed to be open and exposed to the elements as roofing material for flat or low-sloping roofs; he had no experience, prior to working with the claimant, installing a waterproof membrane under a concrete slab. The claimant told the respondent to, “Do whatever it is you do.” The claimant also told the respondent in the same conversation, “not to worry because concrete does not leak.” After a leak was discovered and both parties investigated, they learned that, in cases where concrete is going to cover a waterproof membrane, industry standards require that the membrane itself curve up or “flash” the vertical wall for a distance of at least eight inches. In this case, it did not. In addition, they learned that industry standards require that a protective layer or “protection board” separate the waterproof membrane and the concrete. In this case, it did not. Neither was aware of these requirements prior to the work being performed, nor did the claimant require that the respondent adhere to those standards at the time of performance. Yet the claimant contends that the respondent should be solely responsible for improper work. The claimant’s contention is in error. The claimant directed the respondent to “do what it does” to install a waterproof membrane. The respondent did exactly that. The claimant did not ask or direct the respondent to investigate the procedure for placing a waterproof membrane under a concrete slab. In fact, the claimant implied by its statement—don’t worry, concrete doesn’t leak—that it did not require the respondent to do anything other than that which it regularly did when installing waterproof membranes on a roof.
The claimant served as the general contractor for the residence constructed at 1949 Cheryl Court, Lake Oswego, Oregon. The claimant visited the site daily. As of the date of the hearing, the claimant had been working in the Lake Oswego area as a general contractor for over 36 years. The house the claimant constructed is valued at over $1,000,000. Taking all of these factors in consideration, the claimant knew, or should have known, that it was ultimately responsible for quality and workmanship. Nevertheless, the claimant inspected the respondent’s work and made payment-in-full without ever mentioning improper work. What’s more, the respondent’s work was open for inspection and viewing by the claimant for a period in excess of four months. During that time, the claimant did not raise the issue of improper work. Without any indication that the respondent’s work was improper, the claimant directed another subcontractor to pour concrete over the respondent’s work, making any necessary repairs to the respondent’s work exponentially more difficult and costly. Therefore, the claimant alone bears the responsibility for the high cost to make repairs.
The claimant contracted with a concrete subcontractor to pour a slab of concrete over the respondent’s waterproof membrane. The waterproof membrane was flashed to a height of no more than three inches. The subcontractor poured a 4.5 inch slab. Industry standards require that concrete pours not exceed the height of any flashing. The concrete contractor’s work was improper. What’s more, it is highly likely that the fact that the concrete rose above the flashing contributed, if not caused, the leak at issue.
Finally, during the period between the installation of the waterproof membrane and the discovery of a leak, several intervening events took place, any of which could have either caused or contributed to the leak. Construction workers walked and performed construction work directly on the waterproof membrane, concrete was poured directly on top of the membrane without the benefit of a protective barrier, and the claimant removed and replaced a post that had been flashed by the respondent. The claimant’s evidence did not eliminate any of the above factors as the cause of the leak. Similarly, the claimant failed to establish that the respondent’s work was either the sole or a significant cause of the leak. Rather, the claimant proved only that the respondent’s work was one of several possible causes of the leak.
Read it all, click the headline!
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Anothe example of why metal lath decks need fiberglass over the lath
Still on memory lane row, I found these pictures of a deck in Ventura with an ocean front exposure (at about 200' above sea level, but not fog level)that are of a metal lath coating, brand unknown, with a rusted out lath. This deck system has no waterproofing apparent, no fiberglass, no seal guard, nothing, just relying on slope to run water off before it could percolate down...it didn't work.
Bozo the Clown Applied Urethane on This Job
Nostalgic for a trip down memory land, I'm going through old pictures of jobs I looked at. This one at Justin Vineyards in Paso Robles I didn't redo, it went to a suit I heard over the leaks and application process...but here's some pictures of the job, it's a pathetic looking mess that is a urethane system, brand unknown, that was put down over a damp substrate is the way I heard it, and it's outgassed.
A lesson in making sure your applicator is trained and experienced...
Decks In the Line of Fire" a good article on deck building in CA fire zones
I found this article in Professional Deck Builder online regarding the new fire codes for decks in wild land interfaces. Written by Santa Barbara author and deck builder Bill Bolton, there is some good info here to know and implement into your building strategy.
First 100 Words:
Decks in the Line of Fire Deciphering the code behind fire-resistant construction Bill Bolton As a deck designer and builder on the West Coast, I occasionally build decks in what's called the wildland-urban interface. The geography here is a little different from, say, the woodlands of New England. Winter rains on the California coast support plentiful vegetation, which then dries out in the summer to become a tinderbox (Figure 1). This large fuel source, coupled with high winds in the surrounding mountains and canyons, creates an environment ripe for the wildfires you see on the evening news. Despite the danger,
Click here or our headline to go to the article at Professional Deck Builder online
First 100 Words:
Decks in the Line of Fire Deciphering the code behind fire-resistant construction Bill Bolton As a deck designer and builder on the West Coast, I occasionally build decks in what's called the wildland-urban interface. The geography here is a little different from, say, the woodlands of New England. Winter rains on the California coast support plentiful vegetation, which then dries out in the summer to become a tinderbox (Figure 1). This large fuel source, coupled with high winds in the surrounding mountains and canyons, creates an environment ripe for the wildfires you see on the evening news. Despite the danger,
Click here or our headline to go to the article at Professional Deck Builder online
Monday, May 5, 2008
Picture of the week, a couple weeks late
So I'm looking through a cd I burned of pictures of old jobs; came across this job on the water in Cayucos that I did a few years ago.
As you can see in the first pic, the house is on the water, subject to very harsh conditions.
The deck has urethane on it that burned up from UV and has split and allowed water in. I opened the bubbles on the deck to find salt underneath! Here's the pictures that show it...
after fixing plywood, flashing, and sloping, the deck was redone with the Desert Crete decking system from Hill Brothers.
Pretty amazing sight to see, crystallized sea salt...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)