> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gabriel Orgrease [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 9:24 AM


> There is also the situation that 
> the PI may have made the costly corrections without giving 
> the a/c guy the opportunity to investigate the situation beforehand.

From what Ralph says all the evidence is gone. This is nothing more than
a game of he said/they said. I don't see how blame can be assigned to
anyone except the PI as design/build contractor, unless there are
regulations/contracts/licenses, etc. that say specifically that the AC
guy was responsible for verifying structural load requirements. 

Seems to me that the fact that the roof was roll roofing at 1/8" pitch
is the most damningly favorable item in the AC guy's favor that
introduces a "reasonable doubt" about whether it was his work that lead
to the deterioration of the roof structure. When was that roof membrane
installed?

There are enough variables in the rate at which wood rots that without
the evidence, no one can say for sure. You just have to introduce
evidence that wood can rot quick, or wood can take its good old time to
rot. All you need to do is provide "reasonable doubt" that it can be
said for certain that the roof rot was caused by the HVAC installation.

sign me, Magnum P.I., practicing law without a license.

--
To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the
uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to:
<http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>