Earlier this summer we entered into a contract with a home improvement company (not Home Depot, Lowe's or Long Fence) for replacement windows. I explained to the salesman that I did not want any signs or other advertising for his company placed on my property and he agreed. Wanting to make sure that he understood I asked if it would be OK to add this to the contract and when he told me yes I added the following:

"Contractor agrees not to place any promotional or advertising signs on subject property during the term of this agreement. Failure to comply with these terms will result in a $500 per day charge to be deducted from final invoice amount."

We both signed the agreement and in July the installers came to do the work and one of the first things they did was to place a big sign in my yard advertising "Another quality home improvement job by XXX". The job was supposed to take two days and they wound up coming back for a couple of hours on the third day for miscellaneous final work and clean-up. Each day I took a picture of the sign along with a copy of that day's USA Today like they show when someone is kidnapped.

Well, the invoice arrived a few days later and I promptly paid it, less $1500. The check was marked "Paid in full per contract terms". A week later I received a call from the company asking about the 'missing' $1500 and I explained my reason, directing them to the contract which was signed by their salesman. I was told that he was not authorized to make the change, but they would check into it further. A couple of days later I received another call telling me that the fault lies with the installer who was not aware of the requirement. I told them that that was all well in good, but it was not my place to tell the installer about the contract terms.

Two months have passed with increasing demands for payment and I continue to refuse on the grounds that we have a signed agreement stipulating my requirements. At this point I am willing to continue to fight this since I believe that I have a good chance of winning, but I would be interested in the collective wisdom of the FU community regarding how to proceed. Do you think that I am on solid ground here?

Well you're "right", but it depends on how much time you want to spend dealing with the hassle. Because at some point they'll probably try to ruin your credit or put a lien on your house, and then you'll have to take them to court to get it straightened out. If that's worth fifteen hundred bucks of your time, then more power to you in your endeavor.

A friend of mine was in a sorta similar situation a few years back; contractor made some minor errors, he refused payment, etc., etc. About a month later someone threw mayonnaise jars filled with paint at the front of his house. And of course they never caught who did it.

So, good luck to ya.

AlwaysAnEagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Earlier this summer we entered into a contract
> with a home improvement company (not Home Depot,
> Lowe's or Long Fence) for replacement windows. I
> explained to the salesman that I did not want any
> signs or other advertising for his company placed
> on my property and he agreed. Wanting to make
> sure that he understood I asked if it would be OK
> to add this to the contract and when he told me
> yes I added the following:
>
> "Contractor agrees not to place any promotional or
> advertising signs on subject property during the
> term of this agreement. Failure to comply with
> these terms will result in a $500 per day charge
> to be deducted from final invoice amount."
>
> We both signed the agreement and in July the
> installers came to do the work and one of the
> first things they did was to place a big sign in
> my yard advertising "Another quality home
> improvement job by XXX". The job was supposed to
> take two days and they wound up coming back for a
> couple of hours on the third day for miscellaneous
> final work and clean-up. Each day I took a
> picture of the sign along with a copy of that
> day's USA Today like they show when someone is
> kidnapped.
>
> Well, the invoice arrived a few days later and I
> promptly paid it, less $1500. The check was
> marked "Paid in full per contract terms". A week
> later I received a call from the company asking
> about the 'missing' $1500 and I explained my
> reason, directing them to the contract which was
> signed by their salesman. I was told that he was
> not authorized to make the change, but they would
> check into it further. A couple of days later I
> received another call telling me that the fault
> lies with the installer who was not aware of the
> requirement. I told them that that was all well
> in good, but it was not my place to tell the
> installer about the contract terms.
>
> Two months have passed with increasing demands for
> payment and I continue to refuse on the grounds
> that we have a signed agreement stipulating my
> requirements. At this point I am willing to
> continue to fight this since I believe that I have
> a good chance of winning, but I would be
> interested in the collective wisdom of the FU
> community regarding how to proceed. Do you think
> that I am on solid ground here?

You really want some FU advice?

Any normal person would have just taken the damn sign down. You are an idiot for trying to get the $1,500. Good luck taking it to small claims court (which will end up costing you more than $1,500 in time away from work, etc). In the meantime, this is going to turn up on your credit report. Next time you get a car loan or home loan, the higher interest rate you pay will more than eat up the $1,500.

Quit being a douche and pay the invoice.

I understand that the contractor has the upper hand in this and there is risk with regard to my credit report and time/expense required if I decide to take this to small claims court. However, I still think that there is a principle here with regard to honoring a valid contract provision. What would happen if they discovered that they made a pricing error, undercharging me by $1500, and decided to add this to the final invoice?

As someone mentioned above, I could have removed the lawn sign, but that was not the point. I am willing to fight this to the point that they send it to collections, probably another 30-60 days.

AlwaysAnEagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> However, I still think that there is a principle
> here with regard to honoring a valid contract
> provision.

Being a whistle blower if the company you work for is cooking the books is a matter of principle. Marching on the Mall for Civil Rights is a matter of principle. Turning state's evidence against the Mob is a matter of principle. Throwing your credit report under the bus for $1,500 you will probably have to pay in one form or another anyway is just stupid.

>However, I still think that there is a principle
> > here with regard to honoring a valid contract
> > provision.

Well you also weren't acting in good faith when you allowed them to post the sign , while you clearly were aware that it was not supposed to be there. It sounds like the only "principle" guiding your actions is the principle of trying to rip off a hard working business owner.

I think our colleagues have offered some excellent suggestions, that you should heed. One thought, however, is that you approach the company and negotiate a "fair" rate. You may save a few bucks, not get paint thrown on your house, and retain a good credit rating. Don't fall on your sword for this matter.

Why did you not just tell them to take the sign down. They probably were never told about the "sign rule" in your contract and thus put one up. Just tell them what was in the contract and your problem is solved! Instead you are screwing yourself by not saying anything!

You know sometimes contractors forget to tell there subs something important, like, don't put up a sign. I am sure you have forgot to tell some one something important at one point in time as well, and if not then you are smoking some might fine weed!

Nothingman49 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why did you not just tell them to take the sign
> down.

Because this dude is an asshole looking for a $1,500 rebate on his invoice. As I said before, any normal person would have taken the sign down. Instead, he let it stay there for three days adding up the money he thought he would save.

This is really a con job. I actually have some practical advice the guy could use to resolve this if it were a case of the contractor doing bad work, etc. But I'm not going to offer it because he is trying to screw someone over.

He knows he is wrong. His wife and friends have probably told him he is being an ass. But instead of listening to them, he is posting here hoping someone like Gravis validates his warped view of "principles."

F-him.

He has a signed contract. If the salesman is an agent of the company then too bad for the company for hiring the idiot. Sure he saw them putting up the signs but he asked in writing and they agreed to not do it.

I will be in the minority and take your side. If they go so far as to post a bad credit rating and they know they were wrong you can collect for damages.

I think there is a county website for reporting disputes and to check on citizen complaints on contractors. Let them know up front you will be adding their name to the site. Might make it easier for them to eat the $1,500.

The guy may be a hardass but he did ask them not to and they ignored it. In the future they will be more careful I think.

I also agree and am in the minority. File complaint with Fairfax County Consumer Protection.

http://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/consumer.htm

>If they go so far as to post a bad credit rating and
they know they were wrong you can collect for damages.

Yeah, see how easy that will be to prove without hiring an attorney.

Don't get me wrong, the salesman was a friggin' nimrod to put such a ridiculous clause into the contract. But this poster just strikes me as a dishonest person that will go to unusual lengths to avoid responsibility and swindle a few bucks from people who probably did not deserve it.

For what it's worth, the reason that I do this is because I believe that I should be compensated for allowing the contractor to advertise on my property. When we had our roofing and siding replaced five years ago I asked the salesman from Unicorp if they were going to put a sign on my yard. When he told me that that was standard policy I asked that they not do so unless they were willing to offer a discount on the work. He took $1000, roughly 10%, off the price which I accepted.

When we purchased our last car about a year ago from Koons Chrysler I asked that they not put a Koons sticker on the rear of the vehicle explaining my reasoning and this was written into the sales contract. As we were completing the pre-delivery inspection the next afternoon we noticed that they had indeed put a sticker on the car (it was not there previously) and we refused to accept the car as is. They claimed that removing the sticker might damage the paint, but we made it clear that this was unacceptable and were willing to walk away from the deal. An hour later they took $500 off the selling price and provided an additional $500 in options.

I don't believe that my actions are in any way a con job since I make it very clear what I am asking for and do not feel that it is unreasonable for services to be delivered as promised. In the Koon's example they screwed up due to poor communication and maybe if businesses started to actually listen to their customers this type of problem might not happen.

I know that some (many?) of you will claim that my actions just led to the costs being passed onto to the next guy, but why should I accept bad business practices simply because it is the status quo?

AlwaysAnEagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know that some (many?) of you will claim that my
> actions just led to the costs being passed onto to
> the next guy, but why should I accept bad business
> practices simply because it is the status quo?

Rather than bad business practices, I should have used the word inept. I do not believe or mean to imply that any of these companies are acting dishonestly which is why I did not name the contractor.

TheMeeper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >If they go so far as to post a bad credit rating
> and
> they know they were wrong you can collect for
> damages.
>
> Yeah, see how easy that will be to prove without
> hiring an attorney.
>
> Don't get me wrong, the salesman was a friggin'
> nimrod to put such a ridiculous clause into the
> contract. But this poster just strikes me as a
> dishonest person that will go to unusual lengths
> to avoid responsibility and swindle a few bucks
> from people who probably did not deserve it.

I agree. This guy is a prick who set up this company for a bogus lawsuit.

AlwaysAnEagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't believe that my actions are in any way a
> con job since I make it very clear what I am
> asking for and do not feel that it is unreasonable
> for services to be delivered as promised.

It is a con job because you know most businesses put these kinds of signs up and don't have an easy way of not doing it. If you really felt that strongly about this issue, you wouldn't be asking for money from these people. You would simply refuse to use their services, period.

AlwaysAnEagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Rather than bad business practices, I should have
> used the word inept. I do not believe or mean to
> imply that any of these companies are acting
> dishonestly which is why I did not name the
> contractor.

They aren't inept. They are dealing with a crazy f-er looking to shake them down.

Well, without reviewing the contract's language, I'm not so sure you're entitled to the $1500. The common problem with adding riders to boilerplate contracts is that even if the contractor agreed to the supplemental provision, you are subject to cover all definitions and usage of the contract's language in your rider. In other words, unless the rider specifically said that this provision would apply to the contractor and their affiliates or subcontractors, as the case may be, then a court would not enforce the supplemental provision. Further, if you do take this matter to court, you run the risk of an unsympathetic small claims judge who would place unequal value of damages of $1500 vs. the minor inconvenience of a 3-day sign in your yard. There's also consideration of whether you made a reasonable attempt to contact the contractor on the first day to complain and give reminder of the terms of the supplemental provision. -§

§ Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, without reviewing the contract's language,
> I'm not so sure you're entitled to the $1500. The
> common problem with adding riders to boilerplate
> contracts is that even if the contractor agreed to
> the supplemental provision, you are subject to
> cover all definitions and usage of the contract's
> language in your rider. In other words, unless
> the rider specifically said that this provision
> would apply to the contractor and their affiliates
> or subcontractors, as the case may be, then a
> court would not enforce the supplemental
> provision. Further, if you do take this matter to
> court, you run the risk of an unsympathetic small
> claims judge who would place unequal value of
> damages of $1500 vs. the minor inconvenience of a
> 3-day sign in your yard. There's also
> consideration of whether you made a reasonable
> attempt to contact the contractor on the first day
> to complain and give reminder of the terms of the
> supplemental provision. -§

All good points.

How exactly did this sign cost the homeowner $500 a day? How was $500 arrived at in the first place? Was this contract change made in good faith (why not take down the sign yourself? Did you call to complain? Did the contractor have a sign on his truck during that three days? Did you complain about that?) Also, since you appear to have a history of doing this kind of thing to contractors and businesses to get a pay-out, I think the contractor could get some sympathy from a judge over this.

I think his price may seem a little high but it is advertising on his property for their benefit not his. The alternative was they would be placing the sign on his property generating business and his compensation is 0.
I did not read where the company was giving him any kind of break on the price in exchange for the advertising.

He may be taking a hard approach but it is his property and his business on who makes use of it.

hold em Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think his price may seem a little high but it is
> advertising on his property for their benefit not
> his. The alternative was they would be placing the
> sign on his property generating business and his
> compensation is 0.
> I did not read where the company was giving him
> any kind of break on the price in exchange for the
> advertising.
>
> He may be taking a hard approach but it is his
> property and his business on who makes use of it.

Considering he lives in a residential area, he isn't allowed to charge for advertising since it would be illegal.

Considering he lives in a residential area, he isn't allowed to charge for advertising since it would be illegal.

Ha. Good point.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Considering he lives in a residential area, he
> isn't allowed to charge for advertising since it
> would be illegal.

Which is why I asked for compensation in the form of a discount. Was the $500/day arbitrary? Sort of, but if the contractor received five leads and converted one this seems to be reasonable compensation to me for helping him with business development.

My neighbor had Gutter Helmet (or one of those systems) installed and received $25 for every lead/referral and $100 for every lead which converted into a sale. I think that that is even worse since I received multiple sales calls even when I was subscribed to the FCC Do Not Call list.

AlwaysAnEagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> My neighbor had Gutter Helmet (or one of those
> systems) installed and received $25 for every
> lead/referral and $100 for every lead which
> converted into a sale. I think that that is even
> worse since I received multiple sales calls even
> when I was subscribed to the FCC Do Not Call list.


Maybe you should have spoken to the Gutter Helmet people instead of asking this other company to meet your unreasonable demands.

"Considering he lives in a residential area, he isn't allowed to charge for advertising since it would be illegal."

Then you better start calling the cops on all the home improvement signs all over the county. While you are at it call on the AC-Heating, termite and plumber trucks parked in driveways with their number and ad plastered on them. Seems that is also advertising.

Then you better start calling the cops on all the home improvement signs all over the county. While you are at it call on the AC-Heating, termite and plumber trucks parked in driveways with their number and ad plastered on them. Seems that is also advertising.

This argument, your argument, would NEVER stand up in court.

hold em Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Considering he lives in a residential area, he
> isn't allowed to charge for advertising since it
> would be illegal."
>
> Then you better start calling the cops on all the
> home improvement signs all over the county. While
> you are at it call on the AC-Heating, termite and
> plumber trucks parked in driveways with their
> number and ad plastered on them. Seems that is
> also advertising.

The guy can't CHARGE for advertising. Can't you read? His property isn't zoned commercial. He would be breaking zoning laws for CHARGING. It would be a civil fine, not a criminal one, anyway.

If somebody wants to stick a sign in his lawn for free, that is something different since he wouldn't be treating his residential property like commercial property by CHARGING.

AlwaysAnEagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> When we purchased our last car about a year ago
> from Koons Chrysler I asked that they not put a
> Koons sticker on the rear of the vehicle
> explaining my reasoning and this was written into
> the sales contract. As we were completing the
> pre-delivery inspection the next afternoon we
> noticed that they had indeed put a sticker on the
> car (it was not there previously) and we refused
> to accept the car as is.


What about all the free advertising you are doing for Chrysler? Or are you being compensated for that?

I don't like the dealer's emblem or sticker (sic, advertising) on my car either and have such items removed when placed on my new car. I don't mind advertising the manufacturer's car, so I leave the BMW emblem in place (reminds me of my delightful days in Bavaria).

I do think, however, that the dispute with the contractor's sign on the front lawn is a bit of a stretch and only makes you sound like you've been working a con all along.
Attachments:

FWIW, this was resolved yesterday afternoon with an offer from the contractor of $750 plus a gutter cleaning which I accepted. They admitted that they should have been more diligent when reviewing the contract after it was signed, but conceded that they would have canceled the deal had they seen this at the time. I also learned, however, that they received a number of leads from my neighbors and sold one job, so the signage was effective as a business development tool and they can classify this as an advertising expense.

Wow! That's a real surprise. And all our helpful advice and counsel...
Attachments:

There was a bad hail storm a few years ago that basically required that every roof in Centreville be replaced. the people i had replace mine said they'd put a sign out and they'd give me a cut of the new business (100 per new customer or something). of course they got new business as i was the first they serviced in the neighborhood, and of course i saw their truck in front of other houses later, and of course i got nothing.

WashingToneLocian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is a con job because you know most businesses
> put these kinds of signs up and don't have an easy
> way of not doing it.

Actually, there is an easy way for them to not do this...all that they need to do is ask whether it is OK. My response would be either a) NO or b) what is it worth to you?. Using the default of always placing a sign is not an excuse and forces the homeowner to take a positive action. In my opinion, this is not any different from making consumers actively opt-out of a program or service. The default should be opt-opt, but deceptive companies, both brick-n-mortar and online, know that people don't always read the details. Some people would argue that this is Darwinism at work and that anyone stupid enough to take credit card life insurance or monthly credit monitoring for $19.95 per month gets what they deserve. I simply don't agree with that.

I can read. You say he cannot advertise for money. What do you call a contactor giving a discount in exchange for having the sign up. If the contractor gives you $500 off on a job in exchange for having the signs up then that is the same as money in my book.
Also in the IRS' book it is the same as money. I knew a guy who would do odd jobs at an apartment complex in exchange for free rent. That is the same as income. The going rate on the apartment was $1,200 a month. He was hit with taxes on the $1,200 a month he would have been paying plus back interest on the tax he hadnt yet paid. It is called batering. An exchange of goods or services.

hold em Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Also in the IRS' book it is the same as money. I
> knew a guy who would do odd jobs at an apartment
> complex in exchange for free rent. That is the
> same as income. The going rate on the apartment
> was $1,200 a month. He was hit with taxes on the
> $1,200 a month he would have been paying plus back
> interest on the tax he hadnt yet paid. It is
> called batering. An exchange of goods or services.

Read the entire IRS code...a barter transaction involves two parties, so the landlord also needs to claim the $1200 and is subject to the same penalties and fees. The reality, however, is that this these types of transactions are rarely reported and your friend may have simply pissed off the wrong person who then reported him to the IRS.

I think that it is unlikely that a contractor offering a discount in return for placing a yard sign would be considered a barter transaction and would be difficult to substantiate if it was categorized as a sales discount.

I am well aware of the IRS code. The apartment manager gave him a 10-99. He assumed since no actual cash changed hands then he didnt need to report it. He was wrong.
He was also taken to court by his ex wife who demanded additional child support since the free apartment rent is considered income. She also won.

While it is unlikely the IRS would go after someone taking a cash break for advertising it would still be considered an exchange of services. They get advertising he makes $500.00. I have heard of people letting contractors bring potential customers through their homes for several months in exchange for a free remodeling. When I see the word exchange or barter I know that money or like money is being traded. Thus no taxes are being paid.

Bottom line as far as I read from his original post was that he didnt ask for money in exchange for advertising. He asked that they not put up the signs at all and if they did he would ask for a penalty. They put the signs up anyway. It appears he wasnt asking for the money for the advertising he was asking for it as a penalty for ignoring the contract.