"... Her house build demonstrates that. She described the floor and stair riser issues in her first post ..." She does not go into detail on why the condition of the construction is the way it is. You are assuming it was all the gc's fault. While I am certainly not going to defend the GC she fired, I will say part of that condition might have been from the house being open to the elements for a period of time. ANother part was that she never gave the original GC the opportunity to make the work that was done ready to be installed over. The GC did not complete the project and was removed from the job before he could finish his work, so of course it was not ready to be installed over, because the work was not completed and the original GC did not have the opportunity to make sure the stair system or any other part was in a ready state to be installed over. She very well may have had just cause to remove the CG, but nevertheless she took on the GC responsibility on herself to ensure it was ready for finish trades. I believe it is apparent that this house was not ready to have finished trades in it performing finish work, and it was her responsibility as GC to make sure it was unless soneone else accepted that responsibility by contract. "...A person does not require a GC to have a floor put down. ..." The problem with this is that it was not as simple as getting a floor put down in a home that was ready to have finish trade present. Again, we do not know what caused the stair issues, which could have been: Framing problems caused by the GC's incompetance, or being open to the elements, which flooring installer holds no responsibility for because its a hidden condition, unless it was a tile contractor who must check for build stability, and deflection and rigidity requirements. You might not be aware that carpet, wood, and resilient installers are noit trained for, nor do they hold any responsibility or liability for framing issues. All of which she holds responsibility for as the project GC. The only way the flooring installers would hold liability and responsibility for framing (hidden conditions) issues is if it was addressed on their bids that they agreed to do the work. Any flooring installer would address this in their bids if they elected to take on the added responsibility and liability from stair framing condition and height requirements she may ahve had which could only ahve been taken care of with additional prep they should have addressed in their bids if they wanted to take on the additional responsibility and liability for an added fee. Additionally, she admitted she has no local building codes for such things as stair height. Could they have done better...sure. But it begins and ends with who is liable and responsible. She took that on by electing to be her own project GC. "... While it might have been possible for her to have stepped in earlier to babysit the install where she would have seen that they weren't able to handle the job, stopping it sooner than what happened, that doesn't relieve that company of their total responsibility for having installed a floor over an (obviously) unsound substrate. You can't remove prep from the flooring equation. The flooring company is the professional here and in charge of their own work. It's their job. Once they start putting the floor down, they have accepted the substrate as sound and taken ownership of the results. They did not act responsibly or professionally. Period. Doesn't matter who did the hiring. They and they alone are responsible for their own incompetent work ..." Again, (and again, and again, and again) an installer absolutely is responsible and liable for the surface they install over. However, I will disagree that prep cant be removed. It very well can, and often is removed. While most professional flooring installers do much surface prep, others do not, and FEW, if any, will concern themselves with framing issues AT ALL. I do, but most do not. It all boils down to what was included in the bid. Flooring installers have no responsibility to do added prep work unless they agree to be contracted to do it. They ahve every right to stop work, tell the GC this or that prep needs done before continuing, and tell them to give them a call when its ready to be installed. Lastly, you seem to be taking everything she says as gospel. I dont. I have alot of experience with customers, and customers lie alot... and often. Mostly to save face, save a buck, and/or to shirk their responsibility. The customer is not always right. Thats a falicy. I find it hard to believe that she had issues with the GC, then issues with all the trades. Everyone was wrong in every aspect of this project ... except her. I dont believe that for a moment, but I am not saying its impossible. What I see as possible is someone who bit off more than they could chew, and is blaming everyone else. I am not stating no one else holds any blame though. Could be a little of each. Bottom line its mostly her responsibility unless she has a piece of paper saying different ...except the subfloor issues which the installers absolutely are responsible for if they elect to do the prep and/or install over it.

Yep -- that ghost is gone. Reason why: I am out at least $1500 for the motors if I do try to repair it, and if it really does need a new board, tack on $1000. Plus, I need heat, like, now. Going to be down in the 30's tomorrow night, and spending another 2 days seeing if that will fix it will cause "marital strife".

I didn't name it an XL20i Trane did. It suggests a 20 SEER rating does it not?, but the 20 SEER rating is likely for a 2 ton or 3 ton AC with variations of indoor equipment. So as the tonnages go larger you will lose a SEER or two of that rating for larger equipment sizes, this is common among all brands it's nothing new. Trane doesn't publish the actual numbers, you have to get this information from a dealer that sells a lot of Trane equipment. You could call me a dealer, but not in the sense that I sell a lot of Trane equipment (I work on them and repair them so only in that sense am I a dealer for Trane). I really think the only reason Trane does this is to limit comparisons to the competition as in someone using performance and SEER rating statistics to compare from. With that said the new XL18i suggests an 18 SEER does it not? Again same scenario as above. For larger sizes the equipment will not hit 18 SEER as the model suggests. So from 20 SEER (theoretical based on model indicator) to 18 SEER (theoretical based on model.) The higher the SEER rating the more efficient the equipment. The higher the SEER rating the less the operational costs will be. Do the math: Pay $8k and higher utility costs for new XL18i. OR Pay $2900 to repair existing system and likely have lower utility costs for current XL20i If I had to guess the XL20i could be around 18 SEER and the XL18i is probably around 16 SEER. So would you honestly replace a highly probable more energy efficient system for a newer less energy efficient system? That is really the argument. If this current system is just over 10 years old, theoretically replacing the indoor coil to fix the refrigerant leak may get another 10 years out of it. Certainly there are risks that it may not work out this way, but Trane is billed as really GOOD equipment is it not? If Trane is not really GOOD equipment, why is it often recommended on this board? Sounds kind of scammy if you ask me. R22 Freon is expected to be available until 2030 for servicing existing equipment. So while you will pay more for it especially after 2020 when it's no longer produced and imports are banned, there should be more and more reclaimed as commercial entities convert systems to newer refrigerants to escape the high R22 costs, this is where the bulk of reclaimed refrigerant comes from, because these systems hold a lot of refrigerant. If you have a 'leak free' system (void of refrigerant leaks), the system could run forever without needing any more refrigerant added, regardless of the refrigerant used. I service the Katy, Texas area.

whoa,,after all that she's asking for 10K more? under no circumstances are you required to pay that. Because she miscalculated the time that was needed, is not your fault it took longer. Do not pay her for that mistake. What does your contract say? What did she say about your 'missing' original doors/windows? Was that written down anywhere (that you were to keep the original pieces)? you 8 missing windows, deduct what those would have sold for from what you owe. guarantee she sold those and kept the money. You've brought up major points, but you've already paid. Basically, you've accepted all of their incompetence. show the owner the mess and drywall mishaps. ensure that those are completed. Do not pay another dime until all your fixes are done. And btw, was the 50% down used to purchase the windows? The remainder does NOT get paid until they are all finished and you are satisfied. why you continued to pay her, I don't know. I'm sure you've learned an expensive lesson.