What does your contract say?

Drainage is usually designed to be effective for a certain type of rain event. It might be for x" per hour for a one hour duration, or it may be for a 25 year storm (or other interval - this is a defined storm event for your area), or it may be subjective to reduce puddling in "normal " rain storms.

Two and a half inches with a one hour duration is a pretty strong event, so it might mean that without expressed design criteria, you might be out of luck.

I would suggest that you look up what constitutes a 25 year storm event in your area to see what that is. Then have your LA design the drainage for a 25 storm and write that into his contract.

The first project I stamped as an LA was a drainage system to handle water from downspouts on a house. It was designed for a twenty five year storm which happens to be 2.5" of rain for one hour in that particular community. What a coincidence.

Andrew (laag) has been around the block with this puppy too. Your contract probably tells you what the LA's diagnosis is and what he proposes to fix it. Busking here, but what you might have read extended that into an expectation of your own. Try this 'act of god' with an insurance company and you will see how slippery the ground is. I "like this guy" too and it sounds like he wants to see it through to satisfaction but he probably needs to feed his dog.

Thanks for your input. I felt as you do inkognito, but I just wanted to make sure it what was "right". My girlfriend was pretty sure I should not pay any more, but I don't want to be a witch about this. I just want to do what is right. Regarding feeding the dog,....nah, he's wealthy and does huge projects in St Louis which is two hours from here. What is wonderful, however, is that he takes on little "peon" jobs like mine when he has huge projects as well. He's also thre only "horse in town". But again, I like him.

The language of the contract controls the parties rights and responsibilities. If it is ambiguous, the ambiguity is construed against the drafter of the contract. If it is silent, the parties intent at the time of entering the agreement dictates. Implied in every contract, however, whether stated or not, is a reasonable expectation that the design, product, etc. will perform as intended. While insurance contracts often exclude coverage for acts of God, design contracts often do not and the amount of rain you describe may not have been a "act of God" but rather, a reasonably foreseeable occurrence which the design was intended (and expected) to address. Alternatively, arguably, all rain is an "act of God" and the design was specifically intended to address these acts. Thus, even if the contract does have an "act of God" exclusion, it would, presumably, conflict with other provisions of the contract and any such conflicts must, assuming you did not write the contract, be construed in your favor.

Bottom line, it is not at all unreasonable for you to expect the LA to fix the problem at no additional cost to you. Any professional that regularly bids design work knows of the potential of design failures and usually do (and if not, should), account for the possibility of incurring additional costs when preparing job estimates. In some cases, they may actually lose money on a job, but thatÂs the cost of doing business and designers can and often do recoup such losses in future work.

obesq. What about payment to the nursery that did the dirt work? The LA "oversaw" the work while the job was being done. I have to pay the nursery separately form the LA.

Eden,

It depends on who the nursery has an agreement with. While you may have been required to pay them directly, the nursery may have been acting as a subcontractor for the LA. Does your contract with the LA specify the parties respective relationships, other than the payment terms? Do you have a separate agreement with the nursery (other than to remit payment directly to the them)? If there is no written agreement clarifying this, who ordered the labor and materials from the nursery, you or the LA?

Don't LAs have insurance to protect them against the possibility of just such an ocurrence? I would think that if this is, indeed, an error on the part of the LA, he (or his insurance carrier) should be responsible for the cost of putting it right.

And people are always complaining that an LA won't come out to do work on a house that does not have a big budget.

This may or may not be something that we refer to as scope creep. You get hired to do a limited project and you get asked to address a minor problem which may or may not be attached to a bigger problem. The minor prolem is explained and addressed, but the bigger problem still exists. When the situation is right for the bigger problem's effects to be realized, the homeowner does not understand that the remedy was for the small constant problem that was explained and not the bigger occassional problem that was not discussed.

It is easy to say that the professional should design for the complete package, but in these lower budget situations you are limited to working within the resources that the client has given you to work with. That budget does not always allow for complete solutions.

Bottom line: LA should have refused the job, but since he did not, he has to do it right.

Does this make it more understandable as to why LAs won't take on work without big budgets?

$5,000 a year for professional design insurance - quoted to me on Thursday.

The materails order was by the LA. Money between us has not been disucussed. I wanted feedback from the forum before he and I discussed money. I will let you know how this turns out. Laag----you sound like you have been burned. I am not upset with my LA. Again, I like him and intend to work with him. I appreciate everyone's feedback and comments.

My post was really not to do so much with this thread as it is to related subject matter about LAs being snobs and only working for the wealthy and not being willing to do small projects or help with low budget jobs.

The problem is that you have a license that makes you responsible for what you do because you are supposed to know the right way. But the right way is often out of the budget or seems like overkill to people who can not throw mony around (not poor folks but people who can't toss thousands around). So, if you try to be helpful and work within a budget to fix a problem like this by doing something that might work, you wind up paying more than the money you saved the client when you have to fix it or the damages caused by it. Insurance goes up when there are claims, so unless it is too much to handle, the repair is going to come out of pocket.

I have not been burned .... in that sense.But, I do get a little burnt when people don't understand that people can not take on high liability for short money. Even if they charge a lot per hour, if the total income is only a fraction of the liability, you have to run away.

In those cases, I would hope that an LA who is called to consult on a problem would tell the homeowner what is necessary, and decline the job if they are looking for a bandaid instead of a proper remedy.

This would not only protect him/her from liability, but it would allow the homeowner to make a truly informed decision about how to proceed.

"The material order was by the LA. Money between us has not been disucussed."

While, of course, laws vary from state to state, basic contract principles are fairly uniform across state lines and in Ohio, and LIKELY Missouri as well, this would indicate the LA/nursery relationship as one of general contractor/subcontractor. Though the nursery is still entitled to payment for the labor and materials it supplied thus far (usually, payment would come from the GC, but you have indicated that the contract provides for direct payment from you), the relationship between the LA and the nursery, in essence, makes the LA responsible for all aspects of the work. For instance, if the problem you are having arose out of faulty installation by the nursery (i.e., deviation from the LAÂs design), your recourse would still be against the LA and not the nursery (and the LA, but not you, in turn, would have recourse against the nursery). From your perspective, if the actual cause is undetermined (e.g., bad design vs. poor workmanship by the nursery), this makes it easier because it alleviates the need to specifically identify the cause of the problem. Either way, it is up to the LA to fix the problem and eat the additional costs associated with remedying the problem.

By way of example, if the LA refused to fix it at no additional cost to you and you had to spend money to have another LA come in for a redo and you sued the original LA as a result, if you prevailed, you would be entitled to recover the additional sums that you expended (including money for additional materials and labor) to remedy the problem. Your rights are the same at this stage and you are justified in exercising them and asking the LA to cure the defect without you having to pay twice. If the LA agrees, hopefully, much of the materials can be re-used and the LAÂs only additional outlay would be the labor costs incurred to reinstall the materials.

If the LA insists on some additional payment from you, consider it carefully. While your rights are what they are, legal disputes can be very costly (and mentally draining for the parties) and in most cases, it is beneficial for both sides to meet somewhere in the middle and reach an amicable resolution without resorting to litigation even if that means each side giving up some of their actual or perceived rights.

All true. And it is why you don't get too many LAs showing up for lower end jobs. The risks are close to the same as they are on high end jobs, but the money for the job often is disproportionate to the risk.

I can certainly understand LA's (or any design professional) staying away from the smaller jobs. When they step into the role of not only designer but GC as well, they are increasing their risk. Though they would be on the hook for faulty design, regardless, as GC, they take on more risk than they may have bargained for. On the same token, on small jobs, it makes sense for them to fill both sets of shoes.

Typically, an LA will charge 10-20% when acting as a GC (like any other GC). Ten percent of $5k is $500, not enough to take on much risk at all. So, they won't do the job and won't waste time responding to people who are likely to be looking to do smaller jobs because it takes a great deal of time to write up proposals and to meet people and visit the site.

I know this is off topic, but it is a good place to illustrate the answer to the question "why don't LAs come when I call?" that is a common thread on this site.

What a good peek into the LA's job. I can see why LAs won't do small jobs. Just for the record, I had tried to fix this erosion problem 5 times--spending quite a bit of money. I had a nursery man come out once also with a lousy suggestion. I am "so thankful" the LA was willing to take on my problem because I was at my wits end as to what to do. I had erosion in my yard 8" deep in places-and that's after trying to fix the problem 5 times. I was so ready to pay whatever it took to get the problem fixed. Just from the "other side of the fence", I agree with saypoint e.g. be up front with the small landowner, then they can decide how much it is worth to them. Please think about the small land owner that have problems also that desparately need advice.

Just a side note re: people understnading charges. I think any service job is that way. My husband is an OD and sometimes people get irate when there's a charge. They think they either get the service for free or perhaps 6 dollars. No one, can live on those kind of charges, not to mention all the schooling and expenses.

Well, it sure sounds like the main reason this LA was on the project was to deal specifically with this erosion problem. It should get resolved.

You can get free help and advice from local soil conservation services and cooperative extension and county conservation districts on how to deal with erosion and drainage. It's not just a landscaping problem, it's an environmental problem too. They don't do landscaping, but they can help you evaluate your proposed solutions as to their long term sustainability. Before I threw any more money at the problem, I'd try and find a good stormwater manager to at least take a look at the plans and give me some advice. They do this for free, but finding them with time could be a bit tricky. Worth a shot.