Really? You’re a lawyer, who’s money do you believe it is?
Assuming fair market circumstances, and no foul play - By contractual and cognoscenti* insureds permission, and common sense;
Is the money hired contractors, who purposely establish it with insurers for their own work/livelihood exclusively, or is it insureds to arbitrarily** do as they wish after that fact?
*plural noun: cognoscenti - People who are considered to be especially well informed about a particular subject.
Under contract - A contractor and customer fairly establish a bank loan value in order to construct or reconstruct a property. The loan is approved per the contractor’s requirements.
All is fine until the first draw payment comes to the customer to hand to the (fair) contractor. However - Arbitrarily…The customer then looks for another contractor to do the work, for less.
Contractually, and common sense wise - Who’s money is the customer actually playing with?
Really? You’re a lawyer, who’s money do you believe it is?
Assuming fair market circumstances, and no foul play - By contractual and cognoscenti* insureds permission, and common sense;
Is the money hired contractors, who purposely establish it with insurers for their own work/livelihood exclusively, or is it insureds to arbitrarily** do as they wish after that fact?
*plural noun: cognoscenti - People who are considered to be especially well informed about a particular subject.
Under contract - A contractor and customer fairly establish a bank loan value in order to construct or reconstruct a property. The loan is approved per the contractor’s requirements.
All is fine until the first draw payment comes to the customer to hand to the (fair) contractor. However - Arbitrarily…The customer then looks for another contractor to do the work, for less.
Contractually, and common sense wise - Who’s money is the customer actually playing with?[/quote]
Really? You’re a lawyer, who’s money do you believe it is?
Assuming fair market circumstances, and no foul play - By contractual and cognoscenti* insureds permission, and common sense;
Is the money hired contractors, who purposely establish it with insurers for their own work/livelihood exclusively, or is it insureds to arbitrarily** do as they wish after that fact?
*plural noun: cognoscenti - People who are considered to be especially well informed about a particular subject.
Under contract - A contractor and customer fairly establish a bank loan value in order to construct or reconstruct a property. The loan is approved per the contractor’s requirements.
All is fine until the first draw payment comes to the customer to hand to the (fair) contractor. However - Arbitrarily…The customer then looks for another contractor to do the work, for less.
Contractually, and common sense wise - Who’s money is the customer actually playing with?[/quote]
No Dave - Those would be your thoughts alone. However - You are invited to offer your opinion, in a respectful and dignified manner.
In both the bank loan proceeds or insurance reserve proceeds issue, who’s money is contingently and actually, in good faith, waiting in the wings?
Please consider the following legal principles before you construct your opinion. You opinion will not be taken as legal advice, but rather as simply being your opinion.
No Dave - Those would be your thoughts alone. However - You are invited to offer your opinion, in a respectful and dignified manner.
In both the bank loan proceeds or insurance reserve proceeds issue, who’s money is contingently and actually, in good faith, waiting in the wings?
Please consider the following legal principles before you construct your opinion. You opinion will not be taken as legal advice, but rather as simply being your opinion.
Recovery under the equitable doctrine of quantum meruit requires proof of four elements or essential facts:
(1) The claimant furnished either valuable services or materials or both;
(2) The services and/or materials were furnished to the party sought to be charged;
(3) The services and/or materials were accepted by the party sought to be charged,
(4) The services and/or materials were furnished and accepted under such circumstances that the party accepting the services and/or materials was reasonably notified that the plaintiff, in performing, expected to be paid by the party who accepted the services and/or materials.
Heldenfels
This one doesn’t apply because the roofer did not furnish the shingles, the home owner did.
The services were provided by the roofer and he’s been paid for that already
this one would apply to the ice cream you ate.
We forgot to mention that when you sent her to the store, you were dead broke so you had her pay for the ice cream with her own money. You told her to by a triple scoop, knowing full well that she couldn’t eat it all in one sitting then while she slept you gorged yourself on your ill gotten gains. articles.orlandosentinel.com/201 … lony-lands
Sorry guys. I don’t like ice cream.
I want my change that I am owed.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
One more thing Dave - Please review this before your reply ;
**
MONEY HAD AND RECEIVED**
A claim for money had and received arises when the defendant obtains money that in equity and good conscience belongs to the plaintiff. It is an equitable doctrine applied to prevent unjust enrichment. Hunt v. Baldwin, 68 S.W.3d 117, 132 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.).
A cause of action for money had and received is not based on wrongdoing but, instead, “looks only to the justice of the case and inquires whether the defendant has received money that rightfully belongs to another.” Amoco Prod. Co. v. Smith, 946 S.W.2d 162, 164 (Tex.App.-El Paso 1997, no writ).
The question, in an action for money had and received, is to which party does the money, in equity, justice, and law, belong. All plaintiff need show is that defendant holds money which in equity and good conscience belongs to him. Staats v. Miller, 150 Tex. 581, 584, 243 S.W.2d 686, 687 (1951).
The contractor established his construction cost dollars with the adjuster. The adjuster agreed to pay his price. The construction cost dollars included all materials value, and so all left over materials are his unless he says otherwise.
You want the change that you’re owed? Wrong, you want the change she received. She received it because she is the one who had to purchase the materials since this Contractor became financially troubled. Do you honestly believe, if they had run 2 squares short, this guy would have gone to purchase the materials with his money or would he have asked her to write another check? If this is the way you see right and wrong as well as logical and common sense, it’s no wonder you have to play fantasy contractor here in cyberspace.
Adam Ant’s client is sent to the store for the exact amount of roof materials that he established with the adjuster. He need’s to get the roof on, and for whatever reason, does not have those material funds in hand.
She/he pays for the materials, at AA’s wholesale cost. They can take the funds they spent out of the insurance dollars coming in, or pay AA the insurance dollars directly and AA will repay them for the (AA anticipated) materials out of the working budget. Either way, they only have temporary ownership since they paid, but did so knowing the materials are all AA’s.
It works the same with a cash bid customer. We agree to a work scope and price, I have materials left over, they are mine. I purchase what I feel will get the job done, and a little extra material, “just in case”. Job is done. My financial risk is accomplished, and I get what wasn’t required to fulfill the work/contract.
If you anticipate a gross 10% profit, and are able to make 12% gross because materials are now on sale, do you owe that organic windfall back to your client?
You estimated/contracted a wall to paint, and it is estimated to take 4 gallons to get the job done, and you price it accordingly. Because of pricing, you buy a 5 gallon bucket of it and hit it just right, finish, and a gallon is left over. Is it your or their paint?
Weather is bad. It is going to take 10 days to accomplish a project. Bid Contract is signed. Completion date is established. Weather changes after 4 days, work is done in 7 days. Do you owe money back?
Could you identify at what point the ownership of the shingles changes from one party to the other.
I believe we can agree that at the beginning the store owns the shingles
When there is a meeting of the minds, ownership changes.[/quote]
They signed a contract in August which would imply a meeting of minds, I don’t think you mean that the ownership of the shingles changed in august. The store was still in possession of the shingles for another 5 months.
Could you be a little more specific about the meeting of minds?