Trust your attorney. That is what you pay him/her for. It is much easier to change before than it is after. Good luck, Andrea

What are the changes?

Contracts are business documents. Any business person should be ready to deal with contract changes and lawyers. It's done all the time. If you are looking at a condo development, there will be some sort of legal document setting up the condo association. I'll bet the builder used a lawyer to have that drafted.

Sounds to me like the builder wants everything on his terms, and he is trying to pressure you to drop the legal protections your attorney believes that you should have.

I smell a rat.

I agree with the OP

If you sign the contractors contract (a contract that no doubt gives him a lot more rights and loopholes than it does you) then you are forever more bound by that document unless a court rules that some provisions were statutorily invalid at the time of the execution of the contract and that doesn't happen often.

On the other hand, if you offer a reasonable alternative contract that allows you and your future assigns some breathing room the contractor will forever be bound by that contract. If the contractor told you the literal truth when he said 'his' contract has always been used and accepted by all other buyers then he is either being less than honest, in my opinion, or all your neighbors have signed contracts that could come back to haunt them. Get an attorney and tell him or her every last detail of what you don't like about the contractors contract. Hopefully from there you and the contractor will be able to find common ground in which you both give and take some things.

One thing to keep in mind is this: Once you sign his contract you'll live with it in perpetuity unless it can be proved he broke existing state and local laws in effect at the time the contract was signed. Even then it will be a slow, stressful and expensive.

I have never seen a standard builder contract I would sign. Ever. In fact, I've reviewed hundreds of contracts and I've never seen a "perfect" contract in first draft form.

Listen to your attorney.

Red flags are a-flying.

A contract is a viable way to prove that he *can* be trusted. The very fact that he has brought up the subject of trust makes me want to be sure all dealings with him are checked by a very fine comb. Strictly my personal experience, but people who bring up and use "trust" as a guilt-lever, most often cannot be trusted. They try to make you feel guilty for 'insisting' on even normal assurances, such as a well-written contract. I'd double-check his references, read the fine print on all the bills of lading (well, we should do that anyway!), have his contract so tight that there is no way he can take you for a ride, and I'd still check to be sure the crews, man-hours, and materials are exactly as he claimed.

If the contractor has a valid issue with a phrase or clause within the contract, then he should specify the problem and y'all can work it out. Maybe not to his satisfaction, but at least it will be out in the open.

If he doesn't have a specific issue and is trying to rush you into signing as-is, that's a flashing sign to slow down and ask the lawyer to double-check that *your* azz is covered because it sounds like there is something in the present contract that the C wants but doesn't want you to notice.... hmmm...maybe a too-short time limit on accomplishing the checklist before pay-off? a requirement that only his choice of subs/crews/suppliers can be used? a warranty clause missing so he's not responsible for leaks? Maybe not that, but there's something...

Depending on what his issues are, maybe you can work with him to make your lawyer's changes good for everyone. We completely re-wrote our builder's contract and they were fine with it. THAT was what let us know that they were honest. If they'd intended to screw us, they never would have approved our contract. I'd be concerned if he doesn't even consider the changes you're offering.

I agree with meldy_nva.

If his objections were strictly practical, along the lines of:

"Now *I* have to hire a lawyer too. This will cost more."

or

"Specifying everything out to such a degree will reduce our flexibility and result in wasted time and increased expenses later in the build."

Those might be one-sided opinions, but I could understand where he is coming from. "waah waah! Why don't you trust me?!" - that's a red flag.

OTOH, there are lawyers who find problems where there are no problems just to justify a fee. Most people feel better paying a sizable lawyer's fee when the lawyer has actually done something tangible. If the lawyer says, "Yep. All good" and then asks for a check people feel shorted.

What exactly are you building? A condo building with multiple units? A single family home that is somehow classified as a condo? I think the scope of the project may have some relevance here.

If the lawyer says, "Yep. All good" and then asks for a check people feel shorted.

LOL. That's exactly what happened to me this past Monday. Fortunately, he only wanted fifty bucks.

I agree with the responses. Get your Attorney, and the builder's response to any changes will guide you as to whether you want to sign any contract with him/her.

I'll also add this:
If the builder is this whiny while courting you as a customer, what are they going to be like once you've signed their contract and have some deposit money? The builders I talked to encouraged us to use the AIA contracts and hire a lawyer to review everything. It says a lot about what kind of relationship you'll have during the build.

Anyone have a link to or an example of what a good contract (from the owner builder's point of view) should look like?

what does OP stand for?
I meant to use it as: Other Posters.
Is that the meaning?
thanks

OP=original post/original poster

davidandkasie,

THANKS!!!
:) Ok, in my post I meant that I agreed with askonovd and Frog Hopper. Something new I learned today!

omg... my husband is an attorney and has sent back our contract four times already for changes in language, etc...
i think the builder will get over it. he's NEVER had anyone change anything? he's either lying or hasn't been around that long.

Wow that is bad Kate, although around here rumor is a lot of builders won't build for attorney's just for that reason.

The contract's there to protect both parties by making expectations clear and define the scope of work and procedures for what happens if...

If your lawyer is just making that clearer, good. Personally, I'd have made sure to hire a lawyer with construction law experience. Otherwise the changes might not take care of the real deficiencies in the document.

vancleaveterry- the AIA standard contracts (small project version is probably best for constructing a home) are pretty good documents as a starting point. I've seen discussion elsewhere (can't remember where specifically) of some of the shortcomings. The one I remember is that the version we used doesn't talk about the warranty at all.

They're available from the AIA. Think they're fussy about their copyright, so I think you can only get hard copies.

Tell your builder to PUT ON HIS "BIG GIRL PANTIES" and get over it! :) Just kidding! Do NOT be intimidated by wanting things the way YOU want them. I think that most of the time when builders put up a fuss about something, it's generally because they don't want to go that extra bit to do something different.

I can't tell you how many times I heard "we can't do it that way" or "that's not the way things are usually done". And when I held out for my way, things usually came out for the better and the builder learned some "better" ways of doing things!!!

"omg... my husband is an attorney and has sent back our contract four times already for changes in language, etc...
i think the builder will get over it. he's NEVER had anyone change anything? he's either lying or hasn't been around that long."

Do not expect any bargains.
I usually walk away from anyone who wants a contract to cover every possible contingency.

Most of the actual contracts I have are for remodeling.
There are always unknown conditions that become known after demolition has started.
If you try to cover every possible contingency before the fact expect me to increase the bid to cover the worst possible occurrences.

I also do work for states, and they have long ago realized they cannot afford the 'worst case' contract.
It leads to overbidding to make sure costs will be covered no matter what conditions develop as the job is preformed.
The usual fix is to establish cost guidelines for additional work at a fixed per hour rate.
The number of hours is handled as a contract modification when the additional work is identified.

And just for fair balance, as a consumer (who is also married to an attorney), I would usually walk away from someone who wouldn't be in favor of a contract that covers every possible contingency that can be thought of upfront. After all, the contract should be written in such a way as to protect both parties.

What are the changes? Sometimes lawyers get obsessed with things like what happens if a dinosaur eats the house?

What are the changes? Sometimes lawyers get obsessed with things like what happens if a dinosaur eats the house?

Too true. We had a home inspection done on our current house at the time of purchase. Before he would proceed, the home inspector insisted we sign an agreement that stated his work didn't cover poltergeists.

I'm sure he had an attorney draft that document. LOL

"the AIA standard contracts (small project version is probably best for constructing a home) are pretty good documents as a starting point. I've seen discussion elsewhere (can't remember where specifically) of some of the shortcomings. The one I remember is that the version we used doesn't talk about the warranty at all."

Thank you Thull

Terry

dinosaurs and poltergeists? no, nothing like that. we're paying cash for our build and need to make sure the funds are being appropriated properly. dh is actually doing him a favor. his contract looks like a high school kid wrote it. it's all good.

Superchick, re: "Put on your big girl panties and get over it!" LOL! Thank you, I love that!

For the OP:

Those excuses your builder is giving you are time worn. Don't fall for it. Also if your lawyer hasn't insisted on striking any binding arbitration clause, insist on it now. Arbitration removes your right to sue if you need to, and that's leverage you should never give up. Further, arbitration done this way is private and often biased, so the builders love the secrecy and the fact they are most likely to win. The worst arbitration clauses are those that specify who does the arbitration. I'd compromise and agree only to non binding Mediation, where at least you'll only be out a few hundred dollars and some time if it fails. But with arbitration if you lose you're sunk, (usually).

Here is a link that might be useful: HADD

Without knowing the nature of the changes and what special issues might be involved, it would seem impossible to say if the Builder is right or wrong in his objection. But he shouldn't accuse you of not trusting him.

When the interests of the builder and the owner do not coincide it is the contract that tells both parties how the situation must be resolved. You might trust the builder not to falsify invoices but it is unrealistic to expect him to put your interests above his in a conflict.

By the way, an "agreement" between an owner and a builder is always tailored to meet the needs of both parties. All "standard agreements" are made to be edited. They cannot possibly anticipate all of the needs of the parties.