Hi, I have also found the master builder contract heavily favoured in the...

I wondered what takes precedence the law or the contract,I couldn’t find I had any rights at all unless the builder “willfully disregarded the code,which would be hard to prove. Whats there to mediate really ,you have to stick to the code and consent or fix it I would have thought. What happens when the builder goes over the specified finish date by 4 months and doesn’t notify you?

Contract takes precedence then legislation.

Hi CHCH, I would suggest it’s not always that simple. Generally I believe that under ‘consumer’ law, which is what we are talking about here, there may be certain rights which cannot be contracted away. Also, if this contract was signed after Jan 2015 I suggest you look at the amendments to the Building Regs, which made some aspects of building contracts mandatory, or ‘deemed to be included’ for all contracts over $30K, irrespective of whether they are actually stated in the contract.

Of course you cant contract out of legislation, thought that was a given.

Hi CHCH, Please read your reply of 27/3 to Sam, which said the exact opposite of what you are now suggesting is ‘obvious’. I really don’t want to prolong this, as unfortunately there are a lot of people asking questions, and responding to them, who seem to know so little about how building contracts work that they should probably not be entering into such contracts, or trying to oversee them, without expert legal/technical advice. I spent most of my career overseas involved in writing and administering civil engineering contracts, and more recently employed a builder to build a house here. And I can tell you that the building industry in NZ is a nightmare, even for someone who knows something about building contracts. Of course you need to start with a reasonable contract. So it helps if you know what that should contain. But frankly once you reach the stage that either party has to actually resort to the contract terms for satisfaction, it has already gone so wrong that it will not end well. Your only hope is to find a builder who does a reasonable job, and charges reasonable prices, just because that’s the kind of guy he is. And then you have to be a reasonable client, who does not expect miracles. Good luck with that!

Hi Chris, no it is not the opposite. You are starting from a point that the contract is not legitimate, Im starting from a point it is. You cant contract out of the FTA for example. That’s the obvious reference Im making.

Hi CHCH, Not sure why you’ve suddenly come back (1.5 months later) on this. I said I didn’t want to prolong the discussion, because so many people don’t seem to understand the realities of building contracts. But now you’ve really baffled me. In my entry of 10th April I said ‘Of course you need to start with a reasonable contract. So it helps if you know what that should contain. But frankly once you reach the stage that either party has to actually resort to the contract terms for satisfaction, it has already gone so wrong that it will not end well.’ How on earth do you interpret that as meaning that I’m ‘starting from a point that the contract is not legitimate’? Of course contracts may be legitimate or not depending on how well they’re written. But my point was that if you end up in a ‘dispute’ with the builder that can’t be settled with a reasonable chat, and you end up relying on lawyers, mediators, arbitrators etc, then of course it’s better to have a well written contract. But generally once things reach that stage then the job is not going to end well. So you will probably end up losing money or getting a sub-standard job. But perhaps not losing as much, or getting quite such a bad job, as with a rubbish contract. Maybe it’s a bit like a divorce. If the couple separating can talk reasonably, and have similar ideas about what is fair and reasonable, things can be settled very easily. But if they can’t agree, and end up in court, then it usually ends up an expensive mess, with neither party entirely happy.

Negligent builder prosecuted . This may be of interest. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12065466

I don’t know what pisses me off more, the fact that the builder who was prosecuted thought he could get away with running up that poor persons bill by an extra $100k or the fact that all he got for his intentional and deliberate deception was to only have his license revoked for 2yrs! It beggers belief! Unless our legal system starts treating things like this a little more seriously, it’s hardly going to be deterrent to other dodgy bastards out there is it!? But on a nicer note, Yay go the poor home owner who persevered and won! You are a shining example to everyone!

Hi Sam, Interesting, thanks. Of course if you have a decent Contract, and the support of general law, you can sometimes win in legal disputes with builders. But in a way this supports what I said to CHCH. This article is not entirely clear what the extra $100K was supposed to be for, as the article does not really say that. I can only assume it was for some type of Variation the builder said was necessary, but in fact should not have been, if he had properly taken the plans etc into account when giving his original quote. So to that extent I guess the client ‘won’ the case, and got the builders license cancelled. Not a big problem for him I suspect, as he may be able to employ and work through another LBP But I would be interested to hear what else the clients got out of it, apart from some satisfaction. Did they get the $100K back? Did they end up out of pocket on legal fees? Did they end up with a totally satisfactory house, with CCC etc?