Small Claims Court?

[Lamb]

What are your thoughts on Christians saying they shouldn't sue someone?

We had a contractor who promised me he could help us with our outside shutter situation, and since then I've had him out here twice now to refix things. He just left and the pegs have popped...again. He claims there is no way to do anything because the holes are worn. I feel he is wrong and incompetent.

What are your thoughts?

 

[tango]

What are your thoughts on Christians saying they shouldn't sue someone?

We had a contractor who promised me he could help us with our outside shutter situation, and since then I've had him out here twice now to refix things. He just left and the pegs have popped...again. He claims there is no way to do anything because the holes are worn. I feel he is wrong and incompetent.

What are your thoughts?

I can see an argument based on Paul's comments to the Corinthians about not settling disagreements within the church using the courts but it does rather require that both sides are serious about coming to a resolution. In general it seems reasonable, church or no church, to try and resolve things amicably before getting courts involved. But ultimately if one party isn't willing to negotiate in good faith, or the two parties are so far apart there is no amicable solution, sooner or later one side has to either escalate it or drop it.

I don't see why it shouldn't be escalated, if someone has taken your money and not done what they promised to do.

 

[Jazzy]

Unless the contractor put it in writing that he could fix your shutter problem, it's going to wind up being a "he said, she said" situation and get thrown out of court.

If he did put it in writing (including the part where the holes are unfixable) then I would get a written estimate from at least 2 more contractors stating otherwise. The court wants expert proof and just saying "I feel he is wrong and incompetent" isn't the proof they want to hear.

 

[Messy]

What are your thoughts on Christians saying they shouldn't sue someone?

We had a contractor who promised me he could help us with our outside shutter situation, and since then I've had him out here twice now to refix things. He just left and the pegs have popped...again. He claims there is no way to do anything because the holes are worn. I feel he is wrong and incompetent.

What are your thoughts?

Paul says you may not go to court and if he asks you to give him 5000 just for fun, you should, cause that's what Jesus said. If someone asks you, give it. And the church in Acts, nothing was their own. It's all fine and dandy, but a guy stole my money and I stole his bike, cause I borrowed it and he borrowed the money. If his definition of borrowing is to never give it back, I do the same. I don't go to court though. A few years back my ex's sister set my ex up against me again and he wanted to move to Germany and take the kids and I panicked, called a lawyer and the money grabber wouldnt even talk for free, so bye I asked God instead to fix it and within a week it was fixed and it didn't cost me a cent and no fights and all that stuff.

 

[Lamb]

Unless the contractor put it in writing that he could fix your shutter problem, it's going to wind up being a "he said, she said" situation and get thrown out of court.

If he did put it in writing (including the part where the holes are unfixable) then I would get a written estimate from at least 2 more contractors stating otherwise. The court wants expert proof and just saying "I feel he is wrong and incompetent" isn't the proof they want to hear.

You pointed out exactly the problem, he didn't say he could fix that specific problem in writing. But he promised me the world in person, one of those charmer salesmen that convince you that all will be well.

I think what I might have to do is on Monday, if I don't hear back from him, post in the local Facebook group with a photo of the shutter that is falling off and ask for help from other contractors in how they would go about it, since it's concrete. I won't name the guy and I might even post anonymously, but the guy would still see the shutter and realize it's his work.

 

[GregJ7]

Being displeased with someone or their work requires that you first have expectations. If you haven't conveyed them in writing, you have chosen to take a risk. (You can't control other people and shouldn't try.) It can actually be a lot of work to be ready to hire someone, but I think it is time worth spending because of the education it provides. You may find that some contractors will not take the job if you want to do that, especially if the work is small, and others won't mind at all. The contract can also outline when you will pay (can be in installments) and what the evidence will be that the work, or each phase of the work, is done. It doesn't need to be a long document, but it should be written with enough detail that a judge will understand what the agreement was about. Keep in mind that it is rare that two people can share words and have each understand them the same way.

One consideration is whether you believe he is intentionally cheating people. Then you might have some level of responsibility to the community. Your evaluation that someone is incompetent, however, is not a matter for a lawsuit.

There is no reason to hide your unhappiness about your situation. Posting a photo of the shutter would be fine, but giving his name in public would definitely not be. If you feel that should be done, then you're really feeling like a lawsuit is justified. You don't want to get sued for defamation, even if you have evidence to "justify" what you claimed. Justification evidence is interpreted differently by every person.

Regarding lawsuits in general, in the U.S. there are certain things for which there are no procedures for you to obtain something you are promised or owed, and the proper action is to start a lawsuit. It is a way of involving a judge in the situation so someone will take a look at your circumstances, when there really isn't anyone in government who has the job to look at it for you.

 

[tango]

Being displeased with someone or their work requires that you first have expectations. If you haven't conveyed them in writing, you have chosen to take a risk. (You can't control other people and shouldn't try.) It can actually be a lot of work to be ready to hire someone, but I think it is time worth spending because of the education it provides. You may find that some contractors will not take the job if you want to do that, especially if the work is small, and others won't mind at all. The contract can also outline when you will pay (can be in installments) and what the evidence will be that the work, or each phase of the work, is done. It doesn't need to be a long document, but it should be written with enough detail that a judge will understand what the agreement was about. Keep in mind that it is rare that two people can share words and have each understand them the same way.

You just need to be careful that the wording is absolutely clear and can only reasonably be interpreted one way. If you and the contractor read the same words and interpret them differently then a judge could conceivably interpret them either way and therefore could rule either way, in which case the document costs money without providing the intended benefits.

If you have a written contract then what matters is what the words say, whatever you intended to mean. If the words don't represent what you intended, the document is potentially worse than useless.

 

[Lamb]

One problem stems from the back and forth communication between the two parties and then the contractor writes up a "contract" for the customer to sign. The contract was based upon what was said outside the contract, but not word for word, so there is the problem and loopholes for the contractor. He's the one who wrote the contract and I was the one who assumed we agreed on what was needed to be done, because our other communications implied it.

 

[tango]

One problem stems from the back and forth communication between the two parties and then the contractor writes up a "contract" for the customer to sign. The contract was based upon what was said outside the contract, but not word for word, so there is the problem and loopholes for the contractor. He's the one who wrote the contract and I was the one who assumed we agreed on what was needed to be done, because our other communications implied it.

Chances are the contractor is banking on people either not reading it, or skimming over it because they don't realise they still have the option to not sign the contract. I always find it remarkable when people are handed a page of small print and just sign it without even reading it.