What I don't understand is receiving something other than than what you ordered and paid for, then keeping it. Sounds like false advertisement, an awful misunderstanding, or you didn't receive what you paid for. Maybe I missed something in there but wanted to point out the possibility you may still have recourse. I don't see having to fight the soil for the rest of forever. Incorporating organic matter is something you will have to do anyway, but how much amending will this soil need? If you can achieve the ideal concert of clay, sand, and silt, then why not do it now? Just till in what isn't already there. I think this is one instance I would recommend tilling because the soil is new as it is. Additionally, you get to kill two birds with one stone by turning over the crappy lawn rather than having to kill it off with chemicals. The answer to your question is yes.

I was wondering the same thing about my grasses. My 'Karl Foerster' is already coming up (both old and new Fall plants), but none of my new 'Panicum virgatum Shenandoah' and 'Panicum Ruby Ribbons' grasses show any signs of life yet. I had only one of three Dewey Blue Switch Grass return last year, but so far this year the one remaining clump also shows no signs of life. I hope you're right about grasses waiting for heat. I guess 'Karl Foerster' is not as picky?

saftgeek - I hate to admit it but you are all too correct about far too many attorneys! I was a high school teacher for 20 years before deciding to go to law school and I have been deeply appalled by the how truly unethical and dishonest some lawyers are. In the six years I've been practicing law, I've run into more dishonest, downright sleezy lawyers than I met incompetant teachers in twenty years of teaching school... and people are always knocking teachers for being incompetant! Shyster lawyers make me ashamed of this profession just as incompetant teachers sometimes made me ashamed of the teaching profession. I would urge you or anyone else who has evidence of a lawyer behaving dishonestly or unethically to report them to their state bar association. It might not do any good but then again, it just might. At least in Texas, I think our state bar tries to disbar the unethical lawyers whenever they can find them. It certainly sounds like your ex-boss was exactly that type. I also truly am not trying to paint GCs as dishonest. I believe the vast majority are honest folks who do their best to do a good job when building a home and, if they make mistakes, try their best to fix them. BUT, as in all professions, there are some people building homes that are either lazy, dishonest, or so downright disorganized that the homeowner who ends up hiring one of them needs to be able to go to court and get help. And, unfortunately, the contract promulgated by the Texas Association of Builders is specifically designed to protect these bottom-feeding GCs from facing the music for their bad behaviour. The funny thing is, I KNOW that it was the TAB's lawyers who drafted the d--n contract that protects the bad builders, so when I'm knocking the contract, I'm also slamming some of the members of my own profession! I actually suspect that most builders who use the TAB form contract do so because it is available to them cheaply and they don't know any more about what it really says than the homeowner does. And, so long as there are no major problems with the build - nobody is any the worse off. But, I defy any honest person who has ever READ the TAB contract to argue with a straight face that it is a fair and balanced contract. Among other things, it requires the homeowner to waive the "implied warranty of habitability". Basically an implied warranty of habitablity means that courts have said when two parties enter into a contract for one to build a home for the other, there is an implied understanding between them that the finished home will be inhabitable. The owner doesn't have to make sure to insist that language be put into the contract SAYING that the house must be able to be lived in when comleted...the courts will assume that since the contract was for the building of a home, the finished product must be something one can inhabit or it is simply not a "home." But, just in case someone WANTS just a shell - or something like that - to be built, courts will allow the parties to agree to waive the "implied warranty of habitability". Asking the homeowner to waive the implied warranty of habitablity might be fair if the homeowner wanted to build something totally new and different and the builder said, "you know, I can build that for you but I don't think it'll be something you can live in when I get done, are you SURE that's what you want?" But, I think you would have to agree that, except in those rare instances, a house should be inhabitable, just like a car should be driveable, a suit should be wearable, and a wedding cake should be edible. Would you agree to buy a new car from a manufacturer who insisted that you agree to waive the "implied warranty of driveability"? Would you purchase a suit from a tailor who refused to warrant that it would be wearable? Would you order a wedding cake from a baker who refused to guarantee that it would be edible? Why would you buy a home from someone who refused to warrant that it would be habitable????? Nevertheless, the Texas Association of Builders - with the help of its attorneys no doubt! - realized that implied warranties can be waived and that most homeowners don't ever really read or understand the contract they sign. So they put language into the form contract that waives the warranty of habitablility on every single home built under it. That means the homeowner may think he is contracting for a turn-key home but, even if the house he gets is so defective that he cannot possibly live in it - say the sewage pipe has broken in the wall so that there that raw sewage has contaminated all the insulation - the homeowner cannot argue that the builder breached the contract by building an UNIHABITABLE house. Fair????? The TAB contract also requires that the owner agree upfront to "binding arbitration" in the event of a dispute. This doesn't sound too bad...unless you happen to know a couple of facts about binding arbitration. First, arbitration is MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE than small claims court even though most building disputes are going to be over amounts small enough have brought the claim in small claims court. Second, arbitrators are selected and PAID by the parties to the dispute which means that arbitrators make more money if they are selected for more cases. If an arbitrator wants future work, they have to make sure that the party that is more likely to bring them future business is happy. Care to guess which party is more likely to NEED to hire an arbitrator for a second or third or fourth construction dispute? Some studies have shown that homeowners win less than 5% of claims that go to arbitration but win about half of claims that are tried in a court of law. Even those few homeowners who are nominal winners in arbitration almost never win enough money to actually repair their homes! The TAB contract also requires that the builder receive his final payment, in full, (i.e. NO RETAINAGE) at the time of the final walk-through even though it also specifies that a punch list of items to be corrected/completed/repaired will be made at this same time. In theory the builder is supposed to return and finish the punch list. But, WHY should the unscrupulous builder bother? After all, he has already been paid in full AND the homeowner can't even sue him in small claims court due to the binding arbitration clause I already mentioned? Do you think that is fair? I could go on and on about other clauses that are in the TAB contract but I suspect I've made my point. A builder who insists on using the TAB contract after having some of its many unfair clauses pointed out to him may not actually BE dishonest but, IMHO, neither is he the kind of straight shooter I really want to deal with. Straight shooters are willing to play on a level playing field.

It's not uncommon to do this where we live, but you do have to then disclose anything the inspection reveals. (When we bought our house, the entire inspection report that the seller had done before listing was part of the disclosures.) However, in our area you also have to disclose inspection findings by potential buyers who then walk away, so there would be no option for the seller to "not look" at it--by law it has to be disclosed to the next buyers who come in. The way this worked with our home, and the way many sellers in our area seem to handle it, is that the pre-listing inspection was included in the disclosures. Many major items that might have been dealbreakers were fixed prior to listing on the seller's terms (in our case, it was a new roof and some other repairs), and many other items were left as-is (in our case, lots of small cases of dry rot, an older electrical system, etc.) but were made clearly evident to potential buyers so that they could then be factored into the offer price. (Our seller also included things like estimates for upgrading the electrical and repairing the dry rot in the disclosures packet.) I would wait to do this until you talk to a realtor, but I do think it is a great thing to do if you are willing to hear about and able to deal with any major problems that might surface in the inspection. As first-time buyers, we were more likely to bid on homes that included the inspection report because we felt more confident in the home's condition (even though most/all of the issues should turn up in the buyer's inspection anyway). Whether it makes sense for you really depends on your local market and whether this is customary or not, though. A realtor can advise you on that.