Paying material and labour costs v. full quote
<p>I was given a quote by my contractor (approx. 30K) which included both a labour component (18K) and a material component (12K). However, for various reasons he insisted I pay for the material myself, direct to the retailer. I agreed.</p>
<p>In the end, the material costed significantly less (approx. 7K). However, the contractor is insisting on the full amount, claiming that had I not paid the material I wouldn't have known the difference in cost and he was taking the risk with the quote.</p>
<p>Is this how it works? Am I supposed to pay the full quote regardless?</p>
<p>(No, the quote was not itemized and we didn't agree to an hourly rate. It just listed labour and material. I was fine with the 18K for labour and still am. His final invoice is not itemized either).</p>
<p>Location is Canada.</p>
<p>Edit to clarify: He's looking for the full 12K for material and then pays me back the 7K.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>Is this how it works? Am I supposed to pay the full quote regardless?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>No. The contractor is plain wrong.</p>
<p>Your agreed commitment to obtain materials directly from the retailer supersedes the initial agreement that totaled 30K. In other words, you two amended the contract. Since then, your obligations under the amended contract were to provide the <em>materials</em> he requested and to pay for labor costs.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>the contractor is insisting on the full amount, claiming that had I not paid the material I wouldn't have known the difference in cost and he was taking the risk with the quote.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That is inaccurate. Once he delegated to you the task of obtaining materials directly from retailer, he exempted himself from any and all risks of giving an inaccurate estimate of the cost of materials. In fact, he shifted to you that risk.</p>

canada