• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

Shared fence needed repair, was replaced by contractor without my consent

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

ccw1982

Junior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas

I live in Allen, TX and have a shared fence line dispute with my neighbors contractor (not my neighbor). Initially the contractor felt we had a verbal contract for my roof and fence line (i never felt we did) and upon declining his services i indicated that we needed to discuss what repairs would be performed with myself and my neighbors shared fence line . Those discussions never occurred until after the contractor replaced the entire fence line as well and upgraded it to a higher quality product. Now the contractor is billing me for half of those costs ($25 a foot for a total of $500) and threatening legal action if not paid in full. I had no problem splitting the costs of the needed repairs with my neighbor (again my neighbors are not requesting funds), but at no point in time was i provided from my neighbor or the contractor with an estimate or date of this fence replacement. My question is what is my legal obligation to the contractor under this scenario if neither my homeowners insurance or myself ever agreed that this section of fencing needed to be replaced? The hang up is that he keeps claiming we had a verbal contract who he has a witness to, yet it's my opinion that we never made any formal agreement at any point in our discussions on what materials, costs, or time frame the job would be performed in (he's claiming i verbally agreed to have him discuss those details with the insurance adjuster under our apparent verbal contract).
 


tranquility

Senior Member
Did you see him putting up the fence?

How much would you say the materials to labor ratio is in the cost of the fence?
 

xylene

Senior Member
What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas

I live in Allen, TX and have a shared fence line dispute with my neighbors contractor (not my neighbor). Initially the contractor felt we had a verbal contract for my roof and fence line (i never felt we did) and upon declining his services i indicated that we needed to discuss what repairs would be performed with myself and my neighbors shared fence line . Those discussions never occurred until after the contractor replaced the entire fence line as well and upgraded it to a higher quality product. Now the contractor is billing me for half of those costs ($25 a foot for a total of $500) and threatening legal action if not paid in full. I had no problem splitting the costs of the needed repairs with my neighbor (again my neighbors are not requesting funds), but at no point in time was i provided from my neighbor or the contractor with an estimate or date of this fence replacement. My question is what is my legal obligation to the contractor under this scenario if neither my homeowners insurance or myself ever agreed that this section of fencing needed to be replaced? The hang up is that he keeps claiming we had a verbal contract who he has a witness to, yet it's my opinion that we never made any formal agreement at any point in our discussions on what materials, costs, or time frame the job would be performed in (he's claiming i verbally agreed to have him discuss those details with the insurance adjuster under our apparent verbal contract).
You disagree.

It isn't with your neighbor.

Let him sue you, go to court.

Worst case. You are out 500.

Best case, contractor eats it cause he was railroading you

Middle road - you pay quantum meruit, some amount less than 500
 

ccw1982

Junior Member
tranquilty - yes i did in fact see him replacing the fence but was under the impression, per my neighbor, that the fence had been paid in full. I in fact sought out my neighbor regarding this as i had not heard anything for a few weeks after my dispute with the contractor (regarding my roof and his impression that we were under a verbal contract) at which point my neighbor looked at me confused and stated he had already paid for the work and was simply waiting on the contractor to let him know when the job would start. Me and this contractor had a fairly lengthy verbal sparring match after i chose not to use his services so i thought it best i leave things be as i thought the job had been paid for and the contractor had never made an attempt (even after requested) to speak with me regarding this section of fencing. His argument now is that we had our initial verbal agreement where i was aware i was on the hook for half of the costs, but even during that discussion nothing specific regarding the entire fence needing to be replaced was discussed or what that would cost.

xleyne - that's somewhat where my stance is, i am simply attempting to best arm myself if indeed it goes that far. I have stated to the contractor my intentions are not to waste is time or resources and that i would pay him the amount approved by my insurance adjuster, but his stance is firm that i am responsible for 1/2 of the entire cost for that section of fencing. From the way i see it my obligations are to my neighbor, not the contractor and my neighbor at no point has stated that would like me to pay for half of cost for this fence upgrade. For my neighbor this was packaged deal for their roof and fence so it was done more as a selling point, but for me i'm fairly certain it's a bit personal for him as he feels i screwed him over irregardless of the fact that he hadn't done anything aside from inspect my property for damages and meet with my adjuster
 
Last edited:

Mass_Shyster

Senior Member
The other question posted by tranquillity is also important.

Also, what is the exact amount of the bill? Is it exactly $500, under $500 or over $500?
 

ccw1982

Junior Member
stevef - to answer your question the bill is exactly $500, $25 for 36' for a total of $450 (my share is half that so he's charging me for 18') plus a 2' wing section of fence that is literally my property that he chose to replace for $50 that i never discussed with him
 

Zigner

Senior Member, Non-Attorney
I get the distinct impression that you are FINE with the cost of the fence, you're just trying to find a way to wiggle out based on some sort of perceived disrespect from the contractor.

Just a gut feeling...but backed up by: " I had no problem splitting the costs of the needed repairs with my neighbor"
 

Mass_Shyster

Senior Member
This seems to fall under the UCC

http://law.onecle.com/texas/business/2.201.00.html

Texas Business & Commerce Code - Section 2.201. Formal Requirements; Statute Of Frauds

§ 2.201. FORMAL REQUIREMENTS; STATUTE OF FRAUDS. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section a contract for the sale of goods for the price of $500 or more is not enforceable by way of action or defense unless there is some writing sufficient to indicate that a contract for sale has been made between the parties and signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought or by his authorized agent or broker. A writing is not insufficient because it omits or incorrectly states a term agreed upon but the contract is not enforceable under this paragraph beyond the quantity of goods shown in such writing.
 

tranquility

Senior Member
This is only a partial sale of goods. Since the amount was for $500, that section would not apply. However, many states have laws regarding contractors and the fact there is no writing may prevent a lien from being put on the property and/or there may be some specific services or services/goods statute which applies.
 

Mass_Shyster

Senior Member
Tie that in with "goods" for this thread ;)
By your command:

In Continental Casing Corp. v. Siderca Corp., (16) the Court of Appeals of Texas decided whether the U.C.C applied to a distributorship agreement for pipe and mechanical tubing. Because Continental produced no writing signed by Siderca, if the U.C.C. statute of frauds applied, the agreement would be unenforceable against Siderca. The court noted that under Texas law, the U.C.C. applies to contracts having a mix of goods and services if the predominant purpose or "essence" of the contract is the sale of goods. (17) Observing that "the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions that have considered the question have concluded that distributorship agreements are subject to the UCC," the court found that the predominant aspect of the contract was the sale of goods and held that the U.C.C. governed the contract. (18)

Here, since the bill was by the foot, it can be considered a good.
 

Mass_Shyster

Senior Member
This is only a partial sale of goods. Since the amount was for $500, that section would not apply. However, many states have laws regarding contractors and the fact there is no writing may prevent a lien from being put on the property and/or there may be some specific services or services/goods statute which applies.
From my citation above, Texas uses the Predominant Thrust test for hybrid sales. If the bill had different line items for the labor, it would be arguably less than $500 for the goods, and outside the statute of frauds.

Here, I believe it would be covered by the statute.

(My Article 2 final is Tuesday - How am I doing?)
 

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential
data-ad-format="auto">
Top