Quality Builds Loyalty

We all know not to do business with the guy who just happens to be in your neighborhood with some leftover asphalt or roofing materials. In fact, my general rule is not to do business with anyone who shows up at my door unless it is a Girl Scout selling cookies. That said, there are also risks attached when you initiate the contact with a contractor yourself. You're liable to find the same wide variations in competency, professionalism, and quality as you find in the printing industry.

I ended last month's editorial with the comment that we had yet to hear from any contractors about repairing our damaged garage/ dining room wall. I'm happy to report that we finally did get in contact with some contractors. I'm not so happy to report just how jack-leg and unprofessional some of them were.A cordon was thrown around the forecourt to protect the crime scene.I N V EST I GAT I O N Forensic officers from Northumbria Police examine the scene for evidence after the raid in Barrack Road, NewcastleRuling: The defendant was entitled to summary judgment because it owed no duty to the plaintiff. The defendant installed the garage doors in 1993. Each door was raised and lowered somewhere between 10 and 25 times each day. The plaintiff's employer never had a service or maintenance contract with the defendant, instead calling only on an emergency basis such as when a door would not open. The employer's president testified that he never complained to the defendant about the condition of the doors after any service call. Even accepting that the defendant repaired the doors annually or semiannually and was informed that the doors sometimes spontaneously descended after they were opened, the plaintiff has not raised a question of fact regarding the defendant's duty. The defendant's installation of the garage door 12 years prior to the plaintiff's accident, and servicing of the door, assuming the last door serviced even was the door that came into contact with the plaintiff's head, two and a half years prior to the accident, cannot be considered the creation or exacerbation of a dangerous condition or the launching of a force or instrument of harm. The order is affirmed.The suspects are both described as white men and aged 18 to 20 years old.The raiders smashed the glass and demanded cash.Ruling: Rejecting the defendant's claims on appeal, the court also finds there was no ineffective assistance of counsel simply due to the failure to request a competency hearing. The record indicates that although the defendant held certain delusional ideas, for example the belief that he owned the victim's garage, he fully understood the allegations against him and was able to make strategic decisions with his attorney and interact coherently with the county court during the proceedings. The judgment is affirmed.

Visit the QP blogs at www.quickprinting.com/interactive.

Author: Hall, Bob