Shelton Painting

"This review is from a customer stating misinformation and trying to take advantage of contractors and receive quality work without paying for such work. Below is the result of the arbitration in this matter clearly showing that Shelton Painting worked with the customer and provided quality work: Final Decision The decision in favor of Randall Shelton Based on the parties? evidence and testimony, the arbitrator rules as follows. Castro engaged Shelton to refinish certain kitchen cabinet doors and drawers at her home in Mableton, GA. The parties? communications establish that originally Shelton proposed repainting the cabinet doors and drawers at the cost of $2,950. However, Castro requested that Shelton re-stain the cabinets and drawers at a lower cost of $1,800. Shelton performed some or all of the re-staining work. The parties, however, discovered the quality of the resulting work was poor for reasons unrelated to Shelton work. Castro then instructed Shelton to repaint the cabinets at the cost of $2,950. Shelton completed the work. Having considered this evidence, the arbitrator finds that Shelton work was of suitable quality, substantially complete, and free of significant workmanship defects. It thus substantially met the contract requirements. The imperfections charged by Castro were not pervasive; most were minute. For example, Castro claimed the handles on one or two of the cabinets were misaligned.? The photos show simple handles held by a single bolt. The alleged misalignment of? could be corrected by simply twisting the handle. In any event, this was not a defect in workmanship. Even if the arbitrator were to credit Castro argument and evidence, it is clear from the photos that the cumulative value of ? defective? work did not exceed the 10% of the contract price retained by Castro. She thus suffered no damages because she did not pay the full contract price. Finally, Castro also received the benefit of having the work done twice at no additional charge. The text messages show that she initially chose the re-staining option as a cost-saving measure against Shelton express advice. Shelton performed the work. There was no evidence that Shelton was responsible for the poor result. Again, Shelton produced value to Castro, which exceeded the amounts paid to him. 3. CONCLUSION For these reasons, the arbitrator rules in favor of the Respondent and dismisses the claim with prejudice. SO ORDERED."