The building contractor is claiming money from me even though the work was done badly
I have problems with the building contractor I hired to renovate my home
In most building projects where there are irreconcilable differences between the contractor and the client, it is usually because, on the one hand, the contractor has done the work badly (according to the owner/client), and on the other, the contractor is claiming money from the client, who (for that very reason) refuses to pay.
But what happens if the contractor claims that amount which is supposedly owed? Can you refuse to pay? And what if they sue you?
Let us not forget that building contractors do not normally claim an amount for no reason, but because it was agreed in a contract, because work has been certified as carried out (well or badly), or because a percentage of the works has been invoiced after the advance payments have already been used up.
Well, there are two grounds for opposing that claim.
The contractor’s claim against the client is unfounded because, given the damage and defects in the works and the difference in quality between what was agreed and what was actually built, the principle (in Latin) of “Exceptio non adimpleti contractus” (the defence of unperformed contract) applies, owing to the contractor’s failure to fulfil its obligation: the defects in the works and the breaches of contract are so serious that they exceed the final settlement the contractor is claiming, and mean that the works handed over do not meet the client’s legitimate expectations of receiving the works as contracted. Case law holds that where the handover is so defective, the client is released from paying the price and the corresponding compensation, since there has been an earlier breach of contract by the other party.
Alternatively, if the contractor’s performance is considered merely defective or partial (and not so disastrous), the “Exceptio non rite adimpleti contractus” would apply, because the contract has not been properly performed in terms of quantity, quality, manner or time, and so either the price should be reduced in proportion to the defects in the work carried out (which in this case even exceed the amount claimed), or the damage should be repaired or compensation paid in lieu.
Our legal department knows how to argue all of this properly, backed by an expert report drawn up by our technical department.
Any questions?