

| Subject: | Moral question--no Bob-related content |
| From: | Geza Polony |
| Date: | Tue, 16 Jan 2007 17:16:59 -0500 |
Ok, in a question with no bearing on the Boston Bob scandal of late, here's a situation I've been in many times and have yet to find an answer for. You hire a tradesperson by the hour to fix a problem. He or she puts in the hours, but does not fix the problem. Do you pay? Sounds simple, but it rarely is. Case #1: I took a '93 Saab to a reputable local mech to have the vacuum cruise control fixed, something which I now know is by definition impossible. After five hours of labor at something like $85 per hour, the mech came back with a kind of sheepish look and said he just couldn't figure it out. He put in the time, so he should be paid. I didn't get the problem fixed, so he shouldn't be paid. What's the answer? Case #2: an HVAC installer put in a $4,500 water heater in one of our buildings, but could not get it to start. After countless hours on the phone with the manufacturer and other information sources, we had our maintenance guy reverse the polarity on the AC supply. Five minutes and it worked fine. We paid the installer around $2K for his labor but balked at the second bill he sent for his (worthless) hours troubleshooting. He put in the hours. Should he be paid? Should we, for the damage to our company's reputation from irate tenants without hot water? For the hours we put in? I think this happens all the time, especially in diagnostic situations involving things like intermittent electrical problems. In Vanagons. Any mechanics out there care to comment? Geza
Have something to add on this topic today? Revive this thread in the forum »