As usual, a class act....pretty rare to see someone besides myself with so much tact. I suppose it would be a good game of battle ship, should we ever play...

Hello Tommy;

As stated previously, under general business law, there is the expectation the contractor that accepts the work is qualified to do the work and that he will comply with the appropriate code.

You do not dismantle the engine and transmission of the new truck before you purchase it to verify the various parts and components were machined to the proper dimensions, you do not measure the thickness of the body panels, and you do not dismantle the radio to check that the proper components were used by the manufacturer. You assume the manufacturer knows how to build the truck and you expect the company that built the radio was competent to design and build the receiver.

Consumer groups apply pressure to encourage manufacturers to recall defective products. Some lawyers make their living by initiating class action suites when the manufacturers fail to respond to customer complaints that are not resolved and the pool of disgruntled consumers make it worthwhile to pursue.

In the case of buildings; most states give the Owner seven years to file a complaint against a contractor that fails to perform or one that provides defective work. Again, the Owner is not obligated to provide inspection because the contractor is obligated to provide services that meet the project specifications and applicable codes. In those locations where a building code has been adopted, violations of the codes are a criminal act. The contractor can be held accountable in a court of law. To better protect their self-interest, most owners do provide some level of oversight, but often it is the minimum required by the applicable building code. Providing some level of verification inspection is usually more cost effective than dragging the contractor to court for resolution.

D1.1 places the onus of responsibility on the shoulders of the contractor providing the service which is consistent with other industries and general business practice. Building codes mandate a minimum level of verification inspection that is intended to ensure the structure is safe and to protect the general public. They do not require the same level of inspection for every type of construction and end use. Large structures that will serve the needs of the community, i.e. hospitals, schools, etc. require closer scrutiny than small private structures where there is little danger to the general public.

In the event the contractor's breach is minor the building official has the latitude to simply require the contractor to tear out and replace the substandard work. If the breach is serious the building official has the latitude to refer the case to the appropriate officials and legal action can be taken.

Not every job required full time inspections nor can the cost on-going inspection be justified. After all, even when the contractor's failure to perform initially goes unnoticed; should anything happen, i.e., there is an accident and someone is hurt, the contractor responsible and can be held accountable by means of civil action taken by the Owner or criminal prosecution by the local, state, or federal government.

Best regards - Al