JoeApicella
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2013
- Messages
- 59
- Location
- USA
- Vessel Name
- GLORY DAYS
- Vessel Make
- 2007 MAINSHIP PILOT 43
Right, compression.
When faced with this sort of dilemma I try and look forward and determine what the likely outcome is going to be, then just go straight to that without agro.Called mechanic to work on main engine and Gen. He started working on engine but couldn't get it running. He said needed parts for carb. worked on Gen but couldn't fix that either. He said Carb needed to be rebuilt. Total of 1 hr on boat. Came back another time to replace carb on Gen. That didn't fix it. 1/2 hr on boat. Replaced fuel lift pump on another visit, still wouldn't run. Said he needed to talk to Westerbeke to solve the problem. Another 45 mins. On main engine my neighbor came over and fixed the problem in less than 1 hr. What should I pay the mechanic that didn't fix anything?
Told Mechanic I was sending Gen Carb to another shop for repair; since he didn't know what was going on. I told him to send bill for what was owed. Received invoice for parts replaced, and 10 hrs of labor. How should I handle the payment since he didn't fix anything and is charging for 10 hrs of labor?
WHAT SHOLULD I DO?
Could be different over there, but here(unless excluded, it would be odd if it was) it is an implied term of engaging a repairer that he will exercise reasonable care skill and competence in performing the work. If he didn`t, and it sounds that way,he has a problem getting paid.Apparently you did not understand my comments. Absent a contract with quid pro quo terms about the outcome of the work, the boat owner is liable for payment to the mechanic. So, yes, pay the mechanic and be more explicit about future engagements.
Could be different over there, but here(unless excluded, it would be odd if it was) it is an implied term of engaging a repairer that he will exercise reasonable care skill and competence in performing the work. If he didn`t, and it sounds that way,he has a problem getting paid.
Always a question of fact. Without rereading the whole catastrophe,I recall someone else came in and solved it easily and quickly. Even if lots of things were already excluded, that suggests there was something easy to point at.But can you prove he didn't...
Always a question of fact. Without rereading the whole catastrophe,I recall someone else came in and solved it easily and quickly. Even if lots of things were already excluded, that suggests there was something easy to point at.
It sounded like a "replace parts until we find a defective one" approach with the OP paying for the parts whether defective or not. A scattergun approach.
Yes,easier with hindsight, but it sounds to me like the OP didn`t get the skilled workmanlike competent mechanic he paid for. Usual way to prove if the(? unskilled) neighbour instantly pinpointing the issue isn`t enough, is expert evidence from someone who says "no, wrong approach, here`s what a competent mechanic would have done". Is that evidence available? Only discover that when you look but there is usually a "helpful" expert, even if you secretly ask several others first. Is it economic to go that route? I don`t know. Cases like that usually see a compromise resolution.
If a part was replaced and fixed nothing, it was not the right fix. Query it was a reasonable attempt, but surely the OP doesn`t get charged for the parts which ought get returned. If that happened multiple times it implies "trial and error"; doesn`t sound like good workmanlike wrenching to me.One can file a suit in small claims court, but what one would need is a licensed yard or other provider that would attest that what the man in question did was not appropriate. That's where the problem comes in. No one can attest that the parts replaced by the first mechanic didn't need replacing or at least typically no one will do so. It's possible to make a case but difficult...
If a part was replaced and fixed nothing, it was not the right fix. Query it was a reasonable attempt, but surely the OP doesn`t get charged for the parts which ought get returned. If that happened multiple times it implies "trial and error"; doesn`t sound like good workmanlike wrenching to me.
Hopefully they have sorted it out. What bothered me was people (not you) saying "you retained him, you pay, no matter what". That just can`t be right, but people kept saying it.
Called mechanic to work on main engine and Gen. He started working on engine but couldn't get it running. He said needed parts for carb. worked on Gen but couldn't fix that either. He said Carb needed to be rebuilt. Total of 1 hr on boat. Came back another time to replace carb on Gen. That didn't fix it. 1/2 hr on boat. Replaced fuel lift pump on another visit, still wouldn't run. Said he needed to talk to Westerbeke to solve the problem. Another 45 mins. On main engine my neighbor came over and fixed the problem in less than 1 hr. What should I pay the mechanic that didn't fix anything?
Told Mechanic I was sending Gen Carb to another shop for repair; since he didn't know what was going on. I told him to send bill for what was owed. Received invoice for parts replaced, and 10 hrs of labor. How should I handle the payment since he didn't fix anything and is charging for 10 hrs of labor?
WHAT SHOLULD I DO?
I say it too as retained with no agreement, not even a quote, and for labor and parts, not for task or accomplishment. We don't know that the parts he installed were not necessary. We know they weren't the final fix but he wasn't allowed to finish the job. There's evidence he didn't get the job completed, but none that what he did do wasn't needed or that he didn't do what he claimed to. We don't know those parts should get returned as we don't have the parts he removed to test. That's why some require all parts removed to be retained. Then it would be simple to put the parts he removed back in and see.
I would be upset that the job wasn't completed. However, meeting the burden of proof that the mechanic was at fault is often very difficult and the burden to do so generally falls on the customer. That may be unfair, but that's the typical way mechanics contracts work.
Worst trial and error industry and simply parts replacement I know is computer repair. Very little attempt at diagnosis, at least by the initial technicians involved but very few do work without a work order.
Lacking any other information, I agree with your reasoning.Rereading the original post from the OP I think that the mechanic was in the middle of troubleshooting when the neighbor came by, interjected himself into the process an fixed the problem.
At that point the OP sounds like he “fired” the mechanic.
I’m reversing my previous position, and think that the mechanic should get paid for hours worked hours plus parts.
Maybe I was a bit quick but he does not even sound like he was a mechanic from the way the story has been told so I think the bill should at least be reduced.Do not pay him