Contract language sanity check

[New2pool75]

Hi I am in Coppell Tx and sign my new pool build contract in July. Tile and coping have been completed and not that they have the deck formed with piers for my hip style patio extension I realize something is off with sq. feet. I go online and pull the permit to look at the engineer plans since the BP never sent them to me and square ft. = 273 ft. vs 520 sq ft that was quoted in the contract and which I agreed to pay 30k for. I go to my pool builder’s office and the original designer is out with cancer so I speak with their director of ops about the discrepancy. He tells me that the 520 sq ft is a roof measurement not an area under the roof measurement. I told him this is nuts because I never had once conversation about size of the roof with the designer only what additional patio area I wanted for my kids. Can you all help me determine if I am losing my mind by expecting a 500 – 520 sq. feet in usable area from the contract language below?

I am attaching the contract language for the hip roof patio extension. Keep in mind that he did not provide me with any drawing when we signed. I finally had to down load them off the city's permit portal.. I would loove any feedback on this to try and determine if myself or the PB designer is at fault here.

 

[kimkats]

Looking at the Notes part of the plan it clearly states:
30x24 (520 sq ft) patio cover extension

Point that out to the COMPANY OWNER and go from there.

Make sure to get EVERYTHING in writing from now. If it is an in person talk take notes and have the person read over the notes and initials on the notes to show they agree with what is on the notes.

 

[Turbo1Ton]

I am so sorry about this. I know this kind of disappointment and it really sucks.

I am not a builder by any means so everything I am about to say is my assumptions.

There are a few things that I see in the contract images and notes that would have made me ask a few questions before hand.

I am not sure where the 520 is coming from. 30 x 24 = 720. I would have questioned this immediately. My guess is that it is the removal of the hip sections from the 720' total that get it to 520'.

I think the key word here is 'extension'. The extension from the existing structure that they are doing is 30'x24'.

The design image should/could have been clearer in that they should have shown some dimensions for the patio extension as well as the pool. This would have allowed you to see that the additional covered area is only 30' x 9' (based on the engineering dwgs). I would have asked them to put dimensions on there so it was clear as to what size that new area was. Knowing though, that the width is supposed to be 30', the depth of the new covering is clearly not 24', as it is roughly half or less than the width.

Do you have an email or anything else that could show that the patio SF you discussed with the designer was ~520? It is a moot point at this stage as the design is submitted and approved and I don't think there is enough space between your pool and house to even fit a 24' deep cover. But if you did, it might get some leverage to discuss a possible discount.

--Jeff

 

[swansonite]

Looking at the PB proposal I see under deck section 800 sqft of pool deck and 260 sqft of patio cap deck.

Under the notes it states the "patio cover extension" is 30' x 24' for 520sqft. The drawing shows the existing patio as 12' and the patio cover extension as 12'. (this is height difference not length measurement. Based on the shape of the proposed cover extension I get 540sqft from 30*12(rectangle) + 1/2*30*12 (triangle). To me the key word is "cover", it it was just labeled as extension I think you could have an argument but my first instinct when I saw cover was this note related to the new roof structure, particularly because they called out the new decking elsewhere.

It isn't completely clear but to me it reads how the PB states.

Edit: looked at proposal again and just realized the -12 is the step down not the length dimension. Still come to same conclusion.

 

[Liz315]

I can’t open the engineering file but it is definitely deeper than 9’. Some of your covered area is tucked in under the current roofline and the 9’x30’ (not sure if that’s correct because I don’t see many measurements) extension is the roofline they are adding (your yellow area). The red box I drew shows ur full covered porch which looks pretty large maybe 18’x30’. Now how that plays into what you paid (did this area already have decking so you feel as though the “extension itself should have been the full patio size”I’m not sure. If u look at the zoomed in area of the rendering you can see it goes deep and a lot fits under there).

 

[.ben]

Unfortunately I have a dissenting opinion

I am assuming that the image where you added the yellow box was included in your contract. If so, I'm afraid I am inclined to agree with the PB. The scaled dimension from start of existing patio to end of new patio is 18' on both the contract image and engineering plan. The PB should have included more dimensions on the contract, clearly showing the length of patio extension, but because the drawing is to scale (1/8"=1") I don't think they are wrong for not including more dimensions.

I agree that the 520 SQ. FT. language does not make sense though. Did the PB layout the pool and patio with spray paint prior to construction for your "approval"? If so that is likely more ammunition against your case... Perhaps you can argue you are due a discount or free upgrades based on the 520 SQ. FT. language being incorrect, but I would not expect much.