DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Bad Manners and Brimstone
HTML https://badmanners.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Life in General
*****************************************************
#Post#: 57454--------------------------------------------------
Interjecting into a business dealing based on you giving a recom
mendation
By: Hmmm Date: September 16, 2020, 9:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
In the below Miss Manner's, a friend asked the LW for a handyman
recommendation, which is provided. The LW learned the friend
felt the handyman had not completed all of the requested tasks
but had taken upon himself to do things, including buying
materials, that had not been requested such as a sink. Friend
refused to pay for the additional items. Handyman asked to be
paid for the material but would forgo the labor costs.
LW spoke to friend and suggested the handyman be fully paid. She
later found out that had not occurred and wanted Miss Manners
permission to lobby for the handyman again.
HTML https://www.uexpress.com/miss-manners/2020/9/16/can-i-greet-callers-by-name
In this story, I believe the handyman did more than "overstep a
bit" but really overstepped. He had no way of knowing her plans
for sink replacement since he chose to not ask.
I find the LW in significant breach of etiquette in interjecting
in this business dealing between the friend and handyman. I
would have been seriously put out.
What is your opinion?
#Post#: 57455--------------------------------------------------
Re: Interjecting into a business dealing based on you giving a r
ecommendation
By: Dazi Date: September 16, 2020, 10:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As a professional, you do not do work for which you have not
been authorized to. The friends was under no obligation to pay
for services rendered in which she did not know about or agree
to. In her shoes, I would not have paid either. If you do work
for which wasn't agreed to, then it's a gift.
#Post#: 57457--------------------------------------------------
Re: Interjecting into a business dealing based on you giving a r
ecommendation
By: lakey Date: September 16, 2020, 10:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I hate making recommendations because of issues like this. I may
be satisfied with the way a contractor does business, but
someone else may not. Also, of course, the handyman was out of
line. If I'm going to pay for a new sink, I want to pick it out.
Hopefully the handyman learned from this. The LW should stay out
of it. All that being said, if I were happy with the work, I
might pay for it.
#Post#: 57458--------------------------------------------------
Re: Interjecting into a business dealing based on you giving a r
ecommendation
By: Aleko Date: September 16, 2020, 10:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, I read that one. Assuming that the story as told to LW by
her friend was 100% accurate (big assumption of course; it's
always possible that he said something, she said something, and
he went away under the impression she wanted him to go and buy a
sink and install it, while she was under the impression she'd
made clear she wanted to think about it, or even wasn't bothered
by whatever he reckoned was wrong with it), the handyman was
way, way out of line. If you've been hired to do one piece of
work and see a fault with something else, you draw it to the
attention of the householder and ask them if they want you to do
something about it and if so, what exactly. (She might have been
happy with the sink as it was. She might have wanted it repaired
rather than replaced. She might have wanted it replaced with
quite a different kind of sink. She might have wanted him to
start by doing the work she'd actually called him in about, and
leave anything else for another day.) A handyman who is hired
to do one set of jobs, in the course of them notices something
else wrong that in his opinion needs fixing, should point it out
to the client and let them decide, while he gets on with the
jobs he came to do. There's just no excuse for, instead of doing
those jobs, taking it on himself to buy materials and do
something else.
So LW was also way out of line in two respects: she breached the
general principle of not interfering between a workman and his
client (which holds good even though she recommended him), and
she was quite wrong to assert that her friend ought to pay him
for materials and work that she didn't authorise him to buy or
do.
#Post#: 57467--------------------------------------------------
Re: Interjecting into a business dealing based on you giving a r
ecommendation
By: BeagleMommy Date: September 16, 2020, 12:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The LW needs to mind her own business. If the handyman bought
materials for work he wasn't authorized or asked to do that's on
him. He can either try to return the unused materials or save
them for another job.
#Post#: 57512--------------------------------------------------
Re: Interjecting into a business dealing based on you giving a r
ecommendation
By: caroled Date: September 16, 2020, 11:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
On these boards it seems to have always been the general
consensus...no one get to arbitrarily spend your money.
Otherwise, they've spent their own money, want to spend my
money? consult me!
#Post#: 57528--------------------------------------------------
Re: Interjecting into a business dealing based on you giving a r
ecommendation
By: Hmmm Date: September 17, 2020, 7:44 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Glad to see no one thought the LW was in her right's to
intervene between the friend and handyman.
#Post#: 57535--------------------------------------------------
Re: Interjecting into a business dealing based on you giving a r
ecommendation
By: TootsNYC Date: September 17, 2020, 8:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I do think the homeowner should have made him take the sink back
out or she should have paid for the sink itself. He should have
restored things to as they were.
If he damaged the old sink, or were otherwise unable to restore
things to their original condition, then it gets murkier for me.
Then I think the homeowner is entitled to pay him nothing.
[quote]At this point, I became aware of the situation. I
commented to her that although he overstepped a bit, he was
being helpful and should be fully paid -- especially since she
was, and still is, enjoying the fruits of his labor. She said
she would think about it.
[/quote]
But she shouldn't pay for his labor.
As far as etiquette goes...the LW should stay out of it. That's
between the two of them. The handyman has legal avenues he could
pursue if he felt he was in the right. (If the homeowner kept
the sink, a small-claims-court judge would very probably force
her to reimburse him for it.)
What she can do is refuse to help her friend with any other
recommendations, and she can downgrade that friendship to
acquaintanceship or distance, if she personally feels it's
warranted. She can decide that the handyman was or was not
someone she was comfortable recommending in the future.
#Post#: 57538--------------------------------------------------
Re: Interjecting into a business dealing based on you giving a r
ecommendation
By: DaDancingPsych Date: September 17, 2020, 10:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree that the handyman overstepped... a lot. I agree with
Miss Manners that friend has no obligation to pay.
I would want friend to give me feedback concerning the
handyman's work. I made a recommendation and it is good to know
how it worked out. It would certainly reflect in my future
recommendations and even my own dealings with this handyman. And
if I was a good enough friend to provide a recommendation, I
might be a good enough friend to offer advice on how to handle
the situation. But when you give advice, sometimes the other
person doesn't take it. That's ok; they need to make the best
decision for themselves. I might choose to not offer future
advice (especially if I feel like I am giving the same untaken
advice over and over again), but I really can't fault someone
for deciding what they think is best for them.
However, I think the handyman overstepped twice. I think the
only thing that you do for a recommendation is thank the
original customer. Any details about the project, the pricing,
unpaid bills, or disputes is between the handyman and that
customer (not any of their friends.) Maybe the LW asked the
handyman, but he should have found a professional way to
side-step the questions.
My advice to the LW? Stay out of it. You offered your
recommendation. It didn't work out for friend. Let friend and
handyman work it out between themselves.
#Post#: 57542--------------------------------------------------
Re: Interjecting into a business dealing based on you giving a r
ecommendation
By: OnyxBird Date: September 17, 2020, 10:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=TootsNYC link=topic=1856.msg57535#msg57535
date=1600349250]
I do think the homeowner should have made him take the sink back
out or she should have paid for the sink itself. He should have
restored things to as they were.
If he damaged the old sink, or were otherwise unable to restore
things to their original condition, then it gets murkier for me.
Then I think the homeowner is entitled to pay him nothing.
[quote]At this point, I became aware of the situation. I
commented to her that although he overstepped a bit, he was
being helpful and should be fully paid -- especially since she
was, and still is, enjoying the fruits of his labor. She said
she would think about it.
[/quote]
But she shouldn't pay for his labor.
As far as etiquette goes...the LW should stay out of it. That's
between the two of them. The handyman has legal avenues he could
pursue if he felt he was in the right. (If the homeowner kept
the sink, a small-claims-court judge would very probably force
her to reimburse him for it.)
What she can do is refuse to help her friend with any other
recommendations, and she can downgrade that friendship to
acquaintanceship or distance, if she personally feels it's
warranted. She can decide that the handyman was or was not
someone she was comfortable recommending in the future.
[/quote]
Is the bolded just your speculation or are you basing it on some
legal precedent you're aware of?
I hope a judge wouldn't rule that way for an item that was
installed (i.e., isn't a loose item that can just be handed
back) without the homeowner's consent unless there was some
context that vastly changed the scenario such that the handyman
had a reasonable belief that the work had been requested. That
would set up a situation where the homeowner would basically be
stuck with three choices: 1) pay for an item she didn't want and
was given no choice in selection or cost of, 2) permit someone
she no longer trusts and who has a financial grievance against
her to do even more work on her property to switch them back, or
3) arrange for someone else she's willing to trust with her
property to switch them back (probably requiring payment) so she
can return the new sink. That's a lot of burden to put on the
homeowner to make the perpetrator whole. (I have no idea if a
judge would consider compelling the handyman to pay a third
party to restore the sink to its original state if that was what
the homeowner wanted, but that would seems like a fairer
resolution to me than making the homeowner put out more money
and effort to make the handyman "whole" when the handyman was
the one who, essentially, vandalized her property by making
modifications she didn't want.)
I believe there is also legal precedent that, e.g., unsolicited
products sent by mail to people are legally considered gifts, so
the recipients have no obligation to either pay for the items or
return them, to eliminate scams where someone could send
unsolicited items and then bill for them. I don't know if that
legally translates to a situation where an unsolicited item is
installed without permission, but it seems like a close
parallel.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page