Legal Question in Consumer Law in Massachusetts

I have to supply you with some background, so here it is:
My wife and I have recently engaged a roofing contractor to replace the shingles on our home. We received his quote, made a couple of changes and signed it and sent it back. The work was started on Oct 10.

The issue that is holding up the project is the drip edge (the trim oround the eaves of the house under the shingles). The drip edge is divided into two groups - the main perimeter of the house, and the rubber roof edge (a roof section with a almost no slope, hence a rubber covering). The existing (before replacement) drip edge was three inches wide, measured from the shingle down, around the main perimeter, and the rubber roof edge had an eight inch wide construction. Both needed replacement and my wife and I went back and forth with the contractor, insisting on a four inch wide main perimeter and a seven inch rubber roof drip edge. We even went as far as rescinding our original acceptance of the quote once because the contractor couldn't (or wouldn't) provide the desired drip edge. Finally, all was agreed to and work then proceeded.
The contractor (Kurt Daniels) brought samples of the drip edge he was going to use and my wife approved them, but we discovered later (after the drip edge had been installed) that the contractor did not explain how the drip edge was installed, leaving my wife with a false impression in that what she thought was the width of the visible drip edge (as opposed to what goes under the shingles) was not what really the exposed section - in this case it's less than two inches wide. So Mr. Daniels installed the drip edge he showed to my wide (Jeanie Houston) and we got a good look at it and it's wrong for many reasons - it's not what we noted on the contract, it doesn't function adaquately to keep the water running off the roof from streaming down the side of the house, and it doesn't adaquately cover the unfinished area along of the stucco eaves that runs around the entire house as the original, three inch, drip edge did.
The contractor is maintaining he is not responsible for any misunderstanding, and he uses my wife's acceptance of the drip edge used as confirmation that he selected the correct one. I have countered with the fact that it would be logical to assume that if the original drip edge was three inches wide and we specified four inches for the replacement, it was meant to indicate that we wanted a drip edge with a wider visible portion, not what's out of sight.

The monetary value at stake is a few hundred dollars - I don't have a hard figure but probably less than $600, with a contract agreed price of just over $11,700 for the complete job. My wife feels that she was tricked and the drip edge of our choice should have been installed and therefore the contractor has to fix this on his dime. I agree with her, but I am not sure how to force the issue - we haven't completed the financial transactions and owe Mr. Daniels a little over $6,400 as final payment.

My question, after this long-winded explaination, is what are my options? Can we force Mr. Daniels to replace the newly-installed drip edge with the drip edge we meant for him to install (and expected based on our conversations) at no additional cost to us, or are we going to have to resort to significant legal wrangling?

Thank you for your time.

Asked on 10/20/11, 6:04 am

henry lebensbaum Law Offices of Henry Lebensbaum (978-749-3606)

0 users found helpful

0 attorneys agreed

with long-winded stories, the best approach and there is no short-cut, conult with an attorney.

Answered on 10/27/11, 7:03 pm

Keywords

Match Any Match All

Country

State

Area of Law