Legal Question in Construction Law in California

I am a contractor who was used as a sub on a job to provide and install patio railing. The homeowner specified a paint to use and prime contractor specified that paint to me. At the time I told the contractor that although the paint specified is suppose to be good for use on metal, I did not think it was of the best quality. Now, 20 monthes after my job was completed, the homeowner contacted me directly to complain that the paint did not look good. The contactor has gone out of business and my understanding is that the homeowner did not pay the contractor completely. The homeowner wants me to share the cost of re-painting the railing. What is my obligation?


Asked on 8/16/10, 10:17 am

2 Answers from Attorneys

It depends on what does not look good about the paint job. If it is deteriorating due to inadequate surface preparation or something like that, it is your obligation to share repainting. If the paint is just of low quality and is deteriorating on its own, you have no obligation at all, since the owner spec'd the paint.

Read more
Answered on 8/21/10, 11:24 am
Bryan Whipple Bryan R. R. Whipple, Attorney at Law

I agree. "Not looking good" is way too vague and subjective to be a ground for breach of an express or implied warranty. Contractors following plans and specifications are not warranting that the owner will find it looks good. The warranty, if any, is that the plans were followed and the workmanship would be considered acceptable in the trade.

Read more
Answered on 8/21/10, 12:45 pm


Related Questions & Answers

More Construction Law questions and answers in California