# "Contractor is responsible for adhesion of previously applied coatings"



## SouthFloridaPainter (Jan 27, 2011)

Really?

"Contractor is responsible for adhesion of previously applied coatings" to clarify that underlying problems are his responsibility to fix. 

Can you imagine if a homeowner added this on your proposal!


This was on CNN Money. Here's the original article. ( it's easier to read there)

(MONEY Magazine) -- Done right, an exterior paint job is a smart investment: It will protect your home from the elements, help defer costly repair work, preserve your property value, and add curb appeal. Plus, if your existing paint is peeling, cracking, or bubbling, delaying the job will only cost you more. 
The painter
Make the results last as long as possible -- and maximize the number of years before you open your wallet again -- by basing your hire on five key factors. 
Get referrals from friends and tradesmen and check reviews on angieslist.com. Then ask three painters for written bids. Focus on details other than price, which may range from $4,000 to $10,000. 
The job will only be as good as the surface prep, says Debbie Zimmer of the Paint Quality Institute, so compare how each painter promises to wash, scrape, and sand. 
The paint
Before you choose, check out the exteriors of former customers' homes; it's worth hiring a pricier pro for a good result. And ask to see the painter's liability and workers' comp insurance (plus EPA lead-safe certification if your house is pre-1978). 
The bid should include a coat of primer on any exposed wood and two coats of finish paint on everything. 
"Eighty percent of your cost is labor, so maximize that investment with the longest-lasting paint you can get," says V.C. "Bud" Jenkins, professor of paint chemistry at Cal Poly Pomona. 
Any brand of paint will do as long as it's the company's premium line, says Jenkins; that ensures that it's 100% acrylic (cheaper ingredients don't wear as well) and contains mildew-cides and other additives. 
The tools
A spray gun is quick, but it doesn't press paint onto the surface. That hinders adhesion on wood siding, shortening the life of the paint job, says Bob Cusumano of the Painting and Decorating Contractors of America. 
For wood siding, make sure the painter will use brushes or rollers -- or at least will brush or roll after the sprayer. 
The warranty
It's not the length of coverage that matters most. "If there's a flaw, it's going to show up within a cycle of the seasons," Cusumano says. So a one-year warranty is fine, as long as it states that the painter will fix any issues (such as bubbling or peeling) without exclusions. 
_*For added safety, Cusumano recommends writing in "Contractor is responsible for adhesion of previously applied coatings" to clarify that underlying problems are his responsibility to fix. *_
The maintenance
Though most paint jobs last five to seven years (depending on your climate and the age of your house, among other factors), regular maintenance might extend that to 10. 
So choose a painter who is willing to come back yearly to touch up worn or peeling areas. That will cost a few hundred bucks per visit but save a bundle in the long run.


----------



## CApainter (Jun 29, 2007)

Paint manufacturers have been hiding behind this liability for years


----------



## One Coat Coverage (Oct 4, 2009)

Sounds like a commercial for Angies List.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Bob Cusumano is an expert in the painting industry, if you have ever read any of his stuff you will see he strongly advises painters to do adhesion tests and correct problems before applying. How many failed paint jobs do we see because someone painted over a poor substrate? But I don't think I'd want to be held responsible for it!


----------



## NCPaint1 (Aug 6, 2009)

Right guys, but how many customers will PAY for a complete strip, so that YOUR application is the first layer? Wheres Dan with his statistic?


----------



## Cusingeorge (Jan 19, 2008)

Paint manufacturers (just like the painter) have no control over what has been done to a substrate, or even any kind of foreknowledge of the history of the previous paint job. Sure, they can come out, have a look, do adhesion tests, look at it under a magnifying glass, ask a thousand questions, but in the end, you never really know for sure since you (nor they) were the ones who installed said substrate to begin with.

All paint manufacturers want the end users of their products to "check for adhesion" or "do a test panel" first to ensure compatibility, adhesion, color acceptance, so on and so forth. After all this has been done can there still issues with the aforementioned problems? Absolutely.

This is where you separate good suppliers from the bad ones. No one makes bad products, with malicious intent to make painters' lives difficult, but I can assure you a poor recommendation from a rep or technical guy can be the foundation for trust issues. In this regard, I would feel the same way as CApainter does.


----------



## ProWallGuy (Apr 7, 2007)

SouthFloridaPainter said:


> Really?
> 
> 
> _*For added safety, Cusumano recommends writing in "Contractor is responsible for adhesion of previously applied coatings" to clarify that underlying problems are his responsibility to fix. *_


That just plain scares the hell out of me.


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

Well, quadruple the 4,000-10,000 price range and have all coatings stripped to bare surfaces. Then hire a builder to remove siding, install vapor barrier on older homes, reinstall siding, then redo the roof and gutters, next wrap all horizontal elements of trim with aluminum. Then, in the winter visit the home after each snow fall and remove snow from all surfaces. 

Don't you all do this already anyway? What are you, a bunch of hacks???


----------



## daArch (Mar 15, 2008)

If we were to be responsible for ALL substrates previously applied, we would all be out of business.

I suggest that YOU write in your contracts that although every effort will be made to remove all loose and fatigued paint before application of new coatings, you can not be responsible for all previously applied coatings without total removal to bare wood (or masonry)

BTW, I checked the PDCA standards, this is what I found quickly. Perhaps there is more:

5.1. Acceptance of Surface
5.1.1. The Painting and Decorating Contractor
is required to inspect surfaces to be
finished only to determine, by reasonable
and visible evidence, that the finish will
satisfactorily adhere to surfaces provided
by others and will perform as specified.

Be PROACTIVE with YOUR contract. If they throw this other wording back at you, resubmit a new contract that will cover the costs of total stripping and disposal of hazardous wastes.


----------



## plainpainter (Nov 6, 2007)

NCPaint1 said:


> Right guys, but how many customers will PAY for a complete strip, so that YOUR application is the first layer? Wheres Dan with his statistic?


LOL - what pisses me off, is that you lose so many estimates to the ho's that price cheaply, and years later when the homeowner finally agrees to your estimate - you're now on the hook for the previous guys' lousy work. I could use fractal analysis to predict how much re-work you might be on the hook for - I guess you would have to price it in accordingly if you didn't want to lose your shirt over the years.

This is why, in my state, it's the law {although nobody knows about it} that a licensed contractor has to perform adhesion tests using calibrated equipment manufactured for this purpose. If the home fails the test, or should I say goes above an allowable amount of failure - then by law I think you have to tell the homeowner it has to be stripped to bare wood {or back down to a more stable surface} and redone - or you have to warranty the work, in my case a full year. And any warranty over that has to be expressed in a written contract. 

I think what makes painters professional is when they comply with the states licensing and rules and proper documentation. Too many guys treat this as a cottage industry. For myself, I no longer consider myself a professional paint contractor - I stay within the $1,000 limit for any exterior painting improvement, so as not to be considered a professional. Not that I don't think very highly of myself - but if I am going to take on work full bore then I am going to comply 100% with every mandate out there or nothing at all.


----------



## Steve Richards (Dec 31, 2010)

Good advice, daArch


----------



## tntpainting (Apr 3, 2008)

Wow so great grampa smiths coating that was applied in 1950 is on my hyde? Wow now a days hopefully that was just taken out of context or we are all screwed!!! Lol


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

Wow.


----------



## jack pauhl (Nov 10, 2008)

I hope the pure stupidity is very apparent.


----------



## daArch (Mar 15, 2008)

jack pauhl said:


> I hope the pure stupidity is very apparent.


Jack, 

unfortunately pure stupidity is not apparent to the purely stupid

and you know you can't fix stupid


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

I'm glad you showed me this: I had a client ask me to put that in my contract this year, thought they must have dreamed it up to get what they could out of me, but now I know where it came from. Thanks much.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

Just to let u know, it took me a couple of weeks to calm down.


----------



## TJ Paint (Jun 18, 2009)

This seems to be a good deal for somebody...


----------



## straight_lines (Oct 17, 2007)

Bob Cusumano may be a coatings expert but he is lacking in common sense to tell homeowners to a HO that should be in contract when the paint isn't even under warranty unless its stripped to bare wood.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

straight_lines said:


> Bob Cusumano may be a coatings expert but he is lacking in common sense to tell homeowners to a HO that should be in contract when the paint isn't even under warranty unless its stripped to bare wood.


It kind makes me wonder if he has something against painters or something. You can kind of understand why the ho get's so many odd ideas now reading things like this.
(Also Behr paint is the best paint you can buy)


----------



## Schmidt & Co. (Nov 6, 2008)

I am surprised at Cusumano's statement. He is a PDCA member and retired contractor, and knows his stuff. I've even attended a few of his estimating seminars at the PDCA conventions, and have been pleased with the information presented. 

As Chris said, he is a strong believer that doing adhesion tests prior to painting will prevent problems. I agree. But to say that the PC is now responsible for the adhesion of _*all*_ previously applied coatings, in every situation is just over the top IMHO. Lets face it, not every customer will allow you to cut into there coating, apply tape and rip it off to check the adhesion. 

Try doing that on the front door during an estimate and you will be lucky to get out alive.


----------



## Steve Richards (Dec 31, 2010)

Might as well do your adhesion tests while doing your lead tests.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

Schmidt & Co. said:


> I am surprised at Cusumano's statement. He is a PDCA member and retired contractor, and knows his stuff. I've even attended a few of his estimating seminars at the PDCA conventions, and have been pleased with the information presented.
> 
> As Chris said, he is a strong believer that doing adhesion tests prior to painting will prevent problems. I agree. But to say that the PC is now responsible for the adhesion of _*all*_ previously applied coatings, in every situation is just over the top IMHO. Lets face it, not every customer will allow you to cut into there coating, apply tape and rip it off to check the adhesion.
> 
> Try doing that on the front door during an estimate and you will be lucky to get out alive.


 I think he forgot his roots.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

Steve Richards said:


> Might as well do your adhesion tests while doing your lead tests.


 That's crazy man.


----------



## straight_lines (Oct 17, 2007)

Yea let me do adhesion tests on thousands of square feet of paint on a job I don't even have yet. I love spending more time and money doing estimates.

He has been retired to long, or apparently doesn't realize what we are competing against now.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

straight_lines said:


> Yea let me do adhesion tests on thousands of square feet of paint on a job I don't even have yet. I love spending more time and money doing estimates.
> 
> He has been retired to long, or apparently doesn't realize what we are competing against now.


 He's retired? oh forget him. lol I wish I was


----------



## Lambrecht (Feb 8, 2010)

This thread reminds me of an exterior church that I bid on early this year. Top layer of paint was severly failing everywhere. Paint peeling, water bubbles in the paint the size of baseballs, green mold visible under the top layer, paint so loose that I could pull sheets of by hand, and bottom layer failing also. 
HO wanted the job done right because he bought this church to restore it since it is the oldest church in the county. I think it was built in early 1800's, but had been resided with wood clapboards at some point.My plan was to strip entire exterior surface, prime with oil primer, then apply 2 coats acrylic latex. Gave the HO a price and never heard back from him. Then I hear that he accepted another bid to do the job for 3000.00 bucks. I laughed my azz off. The job required 90 gallons of finish paint which is probably all the other contractor plans on doing. 
Seems like no matter how much you try to educate a customer they can't see past the cheaper price.


----------



## One Coat Coverage (Oct 4, 2009)

ProWallGuy said:


> That just plain scares the hell out of me.


That was just plain irresponsible for that guy to even consider saying that. I work on homes that are over 100 years old. There is no way that I'm responsible for that paint.


----------



## cfpro31 (Jun 29, 2011)

last year we painted a large 3 story home for a local ivy school (not to be named because unions usually do their work), and a similar statement was in the contract. we put a one year warranty on the paint job and luckily had no adhesion problems for any of the layers. in the end we did just about whatever they wanted because the money was too good but that one clause did scare the crap out of me


----------



## RH (Sep 7, 2010)

This was written for HO and consumer consumption. Makes sense to throw that out there because from their perspective, it does sound good. In the real world this isn't going to happen. As Bill said, if they insist, give them the price for entirely stripping the old paint off and one for doing the job the way it would (and should) normally be done. When they see the price difference you can pretty much bet which one they'll go with.
I run into this with interior doors all the time. Latex applied over oil enamel which was poorly prepped (often by the HO who is having me do the bid). Sure, I can completely remove the existing and somewhat failing topcoat (which sometimes has to be done), or, deal with the problem areas and then apply a new topcoat - which will likely be just fine. If they want me to do a complete strip and re-prime I will but once they see the price difference they are usually just fine with having me deal with the problem areas.


----------



## Bender (Aug 10, 2008)

Hmm, I think you guys are over complicating it. I think Bob means you're responsible only for the length of your warranty (one year). 

Not the last 100 years of coatings


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

Bender said:


> Hmm, I think you guys are over complicating it. I think Bob means you're responsible only for the length of your warranty (one year).
> 
> Not the last 100 years of coatings


 So that makes it all better? Have you ever painted over a paint and your paint made the paint below bubble? I have and it's not fun. lol


----------



## nEighter (Nov 14, 2008)

RCP said:


> Bob Cusumano is an expert in the painting industry, if you have ever read any of his stuff you will see he strongly advises painters to do adhesion tests and correct problems before applying. How many failed paint jobs do we see because someone painted over a poor substrate? But I don't think I'd want to be held responsible for it!



There is no homeowner with a big enough pocket book to truly correct the issues.  Gotta love outta the field.. (would not do it his-self) soap box experts.. I want to see what/if he charged for such a parade..


----------



## daArch (Mar 15, 2008)

Bender said:


> Hmm, I think you guys are over complicating it. I think Bob means you're responsible only for the length of your warranty (one year).
> 
> Not the last 100 years of coatings


I'd love to believe you, Dan, especially knowing that Bob's business is investigating failures and determining who's responsible for failures and testifying to such in a court of law.

but the language, as quoted in the OP, ""Contractor is responsible for adhesion of previously applied coatings" doesn't appear to give that much leeway. 

IMO, that seems all encompassing. 

(DAMN, at times I am glad I don't paint any more - - and this is one of the many reasons)


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

I'm with Bender,


> The warranty
> It's not the length of coverage that matters most. "If there's a flaw, it's going to show up within a cycle of the seasons," Cusumano says. So a one-year warranty is fine, as long as it states that the painter will fix any issues (such as bubbling or peeling) without exclusions.
> For added safety, Cusumano recommends writing in "Contractor is responsible for adhesion of previously applied coatings" to clarify that underlying problems are his responsibility to fix.


My take is that he is talking about your warranty period. If you painted it and it fails within a year, pretty good chance that any underlying issues were not addressed.


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

We have one project we do where the very bottom layer, 25ish years old, will bubble randomly after putting a fresh coat on the building. Moisture meter readings are below 15% in those area, some are on the ceilings of front porches and screened in porches with no signs of roof leaking. How am I supposed to predict and prevent this? Adhesion test 100% of the building? And if adhesion testing finds a problem spot, there still is not cost efficient solution.


----------



## RH (Sep 7, 2010)

daArch said:


> (DAMN, at times I am glad I don't paint any more - - and this is one of the many reasons)


So are we Bill...so are we...  :whistling2:


----------



## daArch (Mar 15, 2008)

researchhound said:


> So are we Bill...so are we...  :whistling2:



ZZZZZING !

:thumbup:

OH, BTW,


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

RCP said:


> I'm with Bender,
> 
> 
> My take is that he is talking about your warranty period. If you painted it and it fails within a year, pretty good chance that any underlying issues were not addressed.


Sure, will do!


----------



## nEighter (Nov 14, 2008)

what I read is that guy says you have to address all the problems of the substrate prior to your coating. That you should have addressed any issues. Okay.. BUT what about those houses where it peels to the wood. Like there was no paint ever on it. Or if your paint makes it pop off like that. There is NO way to magically re-adhere the original 29 coats of paint on.. and I know it is just that FIRST coating that came off and all else came off then after.. what you gunna do about that? Not a damn thing. There are some limitations to what we can honestly do. 

I have not perfected magic.. I sure as hell wish I had  Any of you got it down yet?


----------



## RH (Sep 7, 2010)

"The warranty
It's not the length of coverage that matters most. "If there's a flaw, it's going to show up within a cycle of the seasons," Cusumano says. So a one-year warranty is fine, as long as it states that the painter will fix any issues (such as bubbling or peeling) without exclusions.
_*For added safety, Cusumano recommends writing in*_ "Contractor is responsible for adhesion of previously applied coatings" to clarify that underlying problems are his responsibility to fix."


C'mon - this thread is getting everyone's blood pressure up because of one unreasonable (and irresponsible) statement in an article that few consumers will actually see, remember, or take to heart (It IS CNN after all). If someone *were* to pull out this article and say, "See, it says here I should...", I'd say, "So long"! That's a PITA HO I don't need. They can call Cusumano to come and give them a bid.

He "recommends writing in". Well, he can "recommend" all he wants. If a painter is foolish enough to agree to that in their contract they're idiots. 

As always, discuss the existing condition of the surfaces with the HO (what you can do and what they want to pay for), do the quality prep jobs you always do, warranty it for a reasonable amount of time, and stand behind your warranty. No HO should ask for or expect more. All of this talk about expecting the painter to be responsible for all the layers previously applied is BS and we all know it.

Just keep doing the quality work you've always done and all will be well.:thumbsup:

BTW - some of you seem to know this guy. Anyone try to contact him and ask WTH? :confused1:


----------



## RH (Sep 7, 2010)

Okay - I sent an enquiry about this off to PDCA asking for clarification (I left PT out of it). Will let you know if I hear anything back.
Dan


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

I sent him an email on Saturday, with a link.


----------



## RH (Sep 7, 2010)

RCP said:


> I sent him an email on Saturday, with a link.


Thanks Chris!
When Cusumano is quoted he's representing PDCA so I'd like to get their response on this as well. May be the same but worth pursuing to find out.
Dan


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Robert Cusumano did get back to me, here is his response.


----------



## plainpainter (Nov 6, 2007)

I am aware of those adhesion tests, in my state a licensed contractor is suppose to administer those tests. I don't believe I have ever seen it done. Can you imagine telling a homeowner that you will be scarfing their paint in a criss-cross and then ripping tape off it to see how well it adheres - and then you will be doing it in 30 or so random locations all throughout the exterior of the home. And to boot - you will be charging them for it? I think that would be a good way to get homeowners to sign off on the level 1 - where you aren't responsible for prior peeling.


----------



## johnpaint (Sep 20, 2008)

RCP said:


> Robert Cusumano did get back to me, here is his response.


We can all understand what he is saying in his response but this is not real life. Only in this day and age when we all want to pass the buck do you see this way of thought growing. I feel this is all new, only in the last ten years or so that what we have called common sense, is no longer common sense. No one wants to use sound judgement any more. If we can find someone else to blame for our problems then that becomes the right thing to do.
I say shame on Robert Cusumano and people of this like mind.


----------



## daArch (Mar 15, 2008)

Chris,

are responses to Bob C's answer welcomed on your blog? Not that it would be my position (not being a painting contractor), but I think Dan brings up a good point and should express it respectfully as a counter-point to Bob' opinion. 

So many times when I walk into a home that will involve stripping of wallcovering, I NEED to test the the adhesion of that paper. If the HO does not allow a few random tests, I can not accurately estimate the removal.

How can we guarantee ANY work if we can not accurately predict what the substrate will do? 

Dan, please offer a write counter-point to Bob's statement.


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

I am on the phone, so have not read the article response, but it sounds like between rrp testing and adhesion testing, houses are going to be seriously messed with just to give someone a price that now only 10% or less of the population can afford if there is lead and adhesion issues.


----------



## RH (Sep 7, 2010)

I'm not terribly impressed with his response. It's somewhat hard to tell but I get the impression he's trying to imply he wasn't accurately quoted. His answer would make a politician proud. Adhesion tests sound great in theory but the practical application of them (as with tests for lead paint) is an issue.

Interior work is a little different but sometimes not much. Just completed a contract for an entire interior repaint of a late fifties house due to start the first of November. The bathroom has an oil semi-gloss on the walls and ceilings. Don't often find that around here anymore. My bid includes proper cleaning, a light scuff sanding, application of a bonding primer, and then two top coats of a quality acrylic latex. No problem. I'm confident my paint job will last.

While there they asked me to look at their kitchen cabinets which were redone two years ago. Paint is peeling everywhere. Around all the pulls the paint is virtually gone. Of course the problem was that they were redone with latex over oil and very poor prep. So now what? Strip them completely down? Not too practical. So you have to explain that this may very well always be an issue. Deal with the problem areas (some of the more heavily used drawers and doors will get stripped down to a sound surface) and then make it clear that a certain amount of peeling and chipping is going to continue to occur, no matter what. This is basically what any exterior painter has to do as well. Address the problem areas, prep properly, put on a quality product, but make it clear that there may be areas that will "fail" because of previously applied coats. 

I can't and won't be held responsible for all of someone else's poor work but that's what Cusumano's article seems to be telling HOs they should expect.


----------



## plainpainter (Nov 6, 2007)

Bill, if Chris wants me to write a counter-point, I'd be happy to. I think his thoughts don't represent reality. If I had it my way - I would purchase that tool-kit where you accurately cut criss cross patterns, rip off tape test, then photograph results and repeat 30 times and do a statistical summary report, all for the low price of $500.

In reality you and I know how well that would go over. I don't see why we should allow homeowners to slab on the responsibility/culability for the way their jobs turn out if they aren't even willing to let us do the appropriate testing to see what the issues are? It would be like purchasing land sight unseen in Louisiana, and then finding out 6 months later when you go visit, that you purchased swamp land thick with cotton-mouths.


----------



## plainpainter (Nov 6, 2007)

Here is the test tool kit we're suppose to buy and use as licensed contractors....
http://www.gardco.com/pages/adhesion/PATkit.cfm

Imagine doing that on homeowner house? I can't understand why we suffer all this culpability, when nobody forces homeowners to comply with testing. If there is no enforcement to comply with adhesion tests, or lead tests on the homeowner - then the contractor shouldn't have any culpability for the results of the final product.


----------



## RH (Sep 7, 2010)

plainpainter said:


> Here is the test tool kit we're suppose to buy and use as licensed contractors....
> http://www.gardco.com/pages/adhesion/PATkit.cfm
> 
> Imagine doing that on homeowner house? I can't understand why we suffer all this culpability, when nobody forces homeowners to comply with testing. If there is no enforcement to comply with adhesion tests, or lead tests on the homeowner - then the contractor shouldn't have any culpability for the results of the final product.


Jeeze - You just about need an engineering degree to go through the information on the website.


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

I am beginning to think the painting industry, and those that make the rules governing it, have been secretly infiltrated by siding salesman.


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

I had my contract reviewed by an attorney, same with any addendums I may use with it. The last thing I'm going to do is let some HO dictate to me adding on anything that hasn't been reviewed by an attorney. The topic of this thread fits right in that scope.

I've come up on some questionable exteriors and a few interiors where due to shabby paint work or wood and siding failure I've brought it to the attention of the HO. When they call me for a painting bid, it is just that - painting. If they want to go the whole route of stripping and replacement, I'll be more than happy to give them a restoration bid.

I think most of us here try and look out for the HO as much as we look out for ourself. We certainly don't want to have a problem child in our work completed portfolio. We all know who ends up looking bad on those and it isn't the HO.


----------



## plainpainter (Nov 6, 2007)

Wolfgang said:


> I had my contract reviewed by an attorney, same with any addendums I may use with it. The last thing I'm going to do is let some HO dictate to me adding on anything that hasn't been reviewed by an attorney. The topic of this thread fits right in that scope.
> 
> .


I never thought about this! If we take the time to have our contracts reviewed by attorneys, how the hell could you let some homeowner change it willy nilly - without some legal review? Man, I wish we all became professionals, even I am lacks on many issues including attorney review of legal documents. 

Imagine telling some homeowner if they want to change the contract that it has to be run through an attorney and the fee is $500? That would be awesome!


----------



## Wolfgang (Nov 16, 2008)

Dan, believe me when I say that I learned the hard way on a couple of jobs. Even though my brother-in-law is a business attorney and did it basically for free, I would have spent the money anyway. All it takes is one big problem for the fees to look like a small investment.

It's all in the presentation to the HO also. Most of us know when to walk away from a potential problem job before we even submit a bid. I haven't found one law yet that tells me I have to do a job for someone I don't want to. There have been times that a HO has questioned some of the wording in my contracts and addendums. I just tell them that because I'm a businessman I have them written in understandable language by an attorney and that they are there just as much to protect the HO as they are to protect me.


----------



## plainpainter (Nov 6, 2007)

Wolf - I think if we all adopted more legal language into our contracts it would put us all on even footing. I think homeowners sometimes diss the guy with actual legal language in his contracts. Everybody in the universe, including your cell phone company, auto repair shop - all have extensive legal documentation - but we're suppose to be a bunch of bums at the mercy of the homeowner to get screwed into doing 1,000's of free extra work. My buddy runs a canvas shop, and he is extremely unprofessional in his contracts - basically a short description and a price. And he's been forked over by several unreasonable customers. And the judge has ruled in favor of the customer every time! 

With legal language spelling out the terms of how business will be conducted would have saved him thousands upon thousands of dollars. And given the judge something he had to adhere to. Without legal language - the judge F's you over every single time!


----------



## Ole34 (Jan 24, 2011)

kind of like the looks we get for goin after a seem when bidding paper removal jobs ............:blink:


----------



## plainpainter (Nov 6, 2007)

Ole34 said:


> kind of like the looks we get for goin after a seem when bidding paper removal jobs ............:blink:


I refuse to bid wallpaper removal anymore - homeowners have been so uncooperative over the years, they can all go rot with their wallpaper.


----------



## RH (Sep 7, 2010)

plainpainter said:


> I refuse to bid wallpaper removal anymore - homeowners have been so uncooperative over the years, they can all go rot with their wallpaper.


I would prefer to turn this over to the papering pros. Trouble is, there are none that I know of. :whistling2:


----------



## daArch (Mar 15, 2008)

researchhound said:


> I would prefer to turn this over to the papering pros. Trouble is, there are none that I know of. :whistling2:




Looks like it's time to repost # 38




daArch said:


>


----------



## RH (Sep 7, 2010)

Dammit Bill - everytime you post that picture I can't get my dog out from under the bed for at least a day!


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

I would love to see you guys post on the blog, that is what it is for. I think this is a great topic. 

While I don't much care for advising HO's to dictate contract terms, I think the premise of being responsible is good. How many times have we seen a job screwed up because the painter did not take the time to determine if the substrate was sound?

Dan, you are actually required to use that to do an adhesion test? When is it required? By looking at Bob's method and even Gabe's recent example, I did not think that Adhesion test were always that invasive. My perception is that it should be used if there is any question.

I may be wrong, and we don't do a lot of exteriors, but Rob has always tried to determine this before doing a home and we have yet to have a failure. 

I recently looked at a stucco exterior that had some failure around the leaking windows, the leaks had been fixed, but after looking at other areas and doing a simple adhesion test we called in a stucco guy, and it was decided that the house needed to be redone. I could have easily sold a paint job, but the chance of failure was too high.

I think that as professionals, we need to be able to make those calls, or at least have some knowledge of the options. I also think we are getting hung up on the contract issue when he is really advocating to know the surface you are applying paint to.


----------



## Damon T (Nov 22, 2008)

On old house repaints, where there is obvious paint failure, I educate the customers on why their paint is failing, that the original layers are 70-100 years old, and are past their lifespan. I let them know if we dont remove all the paint to bare wood that the paint that remains will continue to fail over time. I build into the proposal that we can only warrant that our paint will adhere to the substrate we apply it to. Similar to paint store warranties. Most people dont want to pay to remove all the paint, and I typically don't want to remove all the paint anymore, it's a lot of work, and all the RRP stuff now is a lot of headache too.

As a long time member of the Pdca I am appalled at the quote by Cusamano! The Pdca standards are put in place to help protect the painting contractor and establish a fair playing field. To say that the painting contractor should be responsible for the underlying coatings goes against common sense and everything I think the Pdca stands for. I hope someone hears back from them about this, and posts soon, or I will contact Richard Greene ( the CEO ) personally and complain about this. Actually I will probably do that anyways, but look forward to hearing if anyone else has received feedback.


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

The current issue of Deco refers back to this thread, FYI. We are now infamous, albeit anonymously famous.


----------



## Schmidt & Co. (Nov 6, 2008)

I read that also Dean and had to snicker. Loved the quotes from some of us here.


----------



## IHATE_HOMEDEPOT (May 27, 2008)

I have never heard of a pig getting plastic surgery. usually lipstick is good enough


----------



## IHATE_HOMEDEPOT (May 27, 2008)

His quote I think meant that it's not okay to paint directly over peeling paint, or a substrate that is currently in the process of failing, ie improperly primed cedar/redwood. and if you do your now the captain of a sinking ship.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

Here is the article on Deco.


> However, the case is different when no architect, engineer, or paint supplier is involved on a repaint job—but instead, a painting contractor submits a proposal for painting. Then, your proposal is the project specification and you have accepted the role and responsibility as the specifier. It’s now assumed that you have conferred with the owner regarding potential issues and have determined what surface preparation is needed and what paints are compatible. If you perform the job according to your specifications and the job fails within the warranty period, in my opinion, you are responsible. It is expected that you have more painting knowledge than the customer and you know what it takes to “do it right.” That’s part of being a professional.


I agree with this.

And my blog.


----------



## DeanV (Apr 18, 2007)

The problem is you cannot test to that level of certainty. Some problem areas are obvious, some are not visible at all. Ever have apparently sound interior or exterior paint start to bubble on you after applying a coat of finish? No spotting that ahead of time without doing adhesion testing over an enormous percentage of the surface to be painted and not sure if it would even show up then.


----------



## RCP (Apr 18, 2007)

He says potential issues, not certainty, I agree, we can't know it all, but is our responsibility to do more than say, "I'll paint it for ***X" and hope it all turns out well. How many threads do we have here where guys applied materials over a poor substrate and then post, "what do I do now"?


----------



## RH (Sep 7, 2010)

Titling it, "Killing the Messenger", makes it sound defensive right from the start. From my exterior days I'd deal with the obvious issues and if the rest appeared sound and didn't react to pressure washing etc, I'd proceed with the repaint.
The exception would be outside of areas like the kitchen, bathrooms, and utility rooms. Any outside walls adjoining these types of areas would receive adhesion tests regardless of how they appeared. Too much potential for moisture related issues.


----------



## Damon T (Nov 22, 2008)

I think the gist of the article, or at least what I take away from it, is to specify clearly what is and is not covered in the warranty. Also to spec out the prep process clearly. There are many different levels of surface prep and surface conditions in the Pdca standards, however they may not always align with how you want to do the job. I spec my own prep and finish methods, and typically exclude failure of previous coatings.


----------



## plainpainter (Nov 6, 2007)

Damon T said:


> I spec my own prep and finish methods, and typically exclude failure of previous coatings.


 My experience is that you can elucidate this concept in ink all you want, when the house peels - they'll think it's covered by your warranty.


----------



## daArch (Mar 15, 2008)

well, I am certainly glad of TWO things,

A) Bob did not take comments here personally

B) He didn't hand pick comments to skew perceptions of an unnamed "painting website".


:whistling2:


----------



## RH (Sep 7, 2010)

daArch said:


> well, I am certainly glad of TWO things,
> 
> A) Bob did not take comments here personally
> 
> ...


Oh... you wrote, "*scew* perceptions". Had to give that a second, and then third look. :yes:


----------



## Damon T (Nov 22, 2008)

plainpainter said:


> My experience is that you can elucidate this concept in ink all you want, when the house peels - they'll think it's covered by your warranty.


You're right about that! It helps though to have it in writing to refer back to. Because no matter how much you "educate" your customers they will forget as soon as it starts bubbling etc. and if it bubbled before, and you don't strip it all to bare wood, it will bubble again. That's something I can guarantee!


----------



## daArch (Mar 15, 2008)

researchhound said:


> Oh... you wrote, "*scew* perceptions". Had to give that a second, and then third look. :yes:



I want you all to listen to me, I'm not going to say this again, I did NOT _*skew*_ that perception !


----------



## Brian C (Oct 8, 2011)

RCP said:


> I would love to see you guys post on the blog, that is what it is for. I think this is a great topic.
> 
> While I don't much care for advising HO's to dictate contract terms, I think the premise of being responsible is good. How many times have we seen a job screwed up because the painter did not take the time to determine if the substrate was sound?
> 
> ...


Chris,
I do a lot of exterior weatherboard repaints and I always have clearly itemized on the bottom of my contract - no guarantee against blistering of paint over previously painted surfaces.


----------

