A Fool for a Client

We received a request from a legal firm to examine a city owned swimming pool that had been painted by one of the firm's corporate clients. The client had not been paid for paintwork done for the contractor who had built the pool for the city. The city was refusing to pay the building contractor because of an incredibly quick deterioration in the finish on portions of the concrete decking and pool wall. Suits and counter suits finally brought the matter to court. We examined the "deteriorating paint" as requested. In our report we noted that although paint was primarily a decorative medium it appeared that in this case, the paint was doing an excellent job of holding the flaking surface of the concrete deck and pool wall together.

In court one of the contracting company principals, who possessed a masters degree in civil engineering qualified himself to act as his own legal counsel on behalf of his company. Proceedings began and our report was introduced through a continuous string of over ruled objections. The points stating that the finish on the concrete was friable, the bulk seemed sound and that the paint film was adhering tenaciously to the crumbling concrete were brought out. The judge was becoming visibly annoyed at the courtroom irregularities and when the contractor called the laboratory test personnel to testify to the integrity of the bulk concrete, the judge stopped the proceedings as being redundant.

An observer in the courtroom asked to approach the bench and introduced himself as the director for the parks and recreation department of the city. The director explained that he was the source of the "hold back" and proceeded to explain why. The department director described how he had watched the construction crew call for concrete just before lunch on a very hot summer day. On suggesting to the foreman that he wait for the lunch break the director was told in un-mistakable terms to mind his own business and the concrete was called for, poured and all retired for lunch. In the high heat the poured surface set up quickly. After the lunch break the construction crew attempted to force a smooth finish on to the setting surface by adding water. The solidifying lumps and pieces were frantically broken up and the surface re-worked many times to blend in and hide the large pieces of set concrete. All the frantic activity was duly noted by the director who stood well back in the shade and watched.

When the facts were all part of the court records the judge wasted no time in ruling in favor of the painter and awarded all costs.