Vast difference in quote/invoice

unholyangel

BoGoF wrote: »

You said you measured it at 39.1 sq metres, was this incorrect?

Why would it be incorrect?

The OP has already told us the trader originally measured (and quoted) 39. The OP has since measured it themselves and achieved the same answer.

Its not exactly a hard calculation, simple multiplication.

DoaM

I'm still wondering how the trader has now calculated 43 sq meters ... did they buy excess for providing a clean finish and the extra is wastage/cut-offs? If yes then they should have factored that into the quote ... OR advised the OP of the issue during build, not after everything is finished.

unholyangel

DoaM wrote: »

I'm still wondering how the trader has now calculated 43 sq meters ... did they buy excess for providing a clean finish and the extra is wastage/cut-offs? If yes then they should have factored that into the quote ... OR advised the OP of the issue during build, not after everything is finished.

I considered this at length before my first post on here but wrote it off. If it was for waste, then the price increase should just be for materials and not also for fitting/laying.

I also considered if maybe he had invoiced based on his supply invoices - but surely he would know he orders extra to for waste and wouldn't be claiming he laid the extra. I considered whether maybe someone (not in the trade) invoices for him, but again it wouldn't explain why he's claiming he laid extra.

Tbh I'm learning quite firmly towards him purposely chancing his arm rather than it being a genuine mistake.

BoGoF

unholyangel wrote: »

Why would it be incorrect?

The OP has already told us the trader originally measured (and quoted) 39. The OP has since measured it themselves and achieved the same answer.

Its not exactly a hard calculation, simple multiplication.

Well op said in his most recent post he is prepared to pay for the extra materials which suggests, to me, that more than 39 sq metres has been laid.

unholyangel

BoGoF wrote: »

Well op said in his most recent post he is prepared to pay for the extra materials which suggests, to me, that more than 39 sq metres has been laid.

But the OP also said in the same sentence that they've calculated the area to only be 39m (the same as the builders estimator - whoever or whatever that is).

BoGoF

Post #20 is ambigous to me. OP is talking about this extra area. Why would they offer to pay for extra materials if it was 39 sq m quoted and laid?

unholyangel

BoGoF wrote: »

Post #20 is ambigous to me. OP is talking about this extra area. Why would they offer to pay for extra materials if it was 39 sq m quoted and laid?

I read it as:

I am prepared to pay the materials cost if it is actually 43m, but as previously stated, his estimater made it 39 sq mtrs and so did I.

My addition in blue.

Although perhaps OP can return to clarify, for absolute certainty.

dunroving

I think more information is needed on what the quote actually says.

As pointed out, 44msq of slabbing may be needed to cover a 39msq area due to trimming, waste, etc.

A detailed quote might identify the area as 39msq, requiring 44msq of slabs. If the quote simply says the area is 39msq and identifies the job as covering that area with slabbing, the amount of materials is irrelevant - it's up to him to provide sufficient materials to do the job.

If the contractor simply forgot to adjust for waste, that's his mistake, and he should bear the cost and promise himself that he will not make the same mistake again.