[X]

Julian Interiors, Inc. Complaint - Don't Pay for a Carpet Company Mistake

Review by ConsumerRumor on 2010-11-17
SANTA YSABEL -- Never in a million years would I imagine having to pay $8000 for the wrong color carpet being installed, but this is exactly what happened. Julian Interiors met with me to select a carpet. I chose a darker color for my rental home installation and asked for lighter samples for my personal residence. I was supposed to be mailed the samples as well as the contract before the date of installation but neither happened because the woman I was working with left town and dropped the ball. The lighter color carpet was wrongly ordered by mistake and installed. When I went to see the carpet, I noticed the mistake right away and contacted Julian Interiors. They refused to admit any wrong doing and refused to remove the carpet. I offered to pay for their costs since they would not remove the carpet and they refused to rip out the carpet (Is this even legal???) /Two years later they took me to Small Claims court miles away from where we conducted business and yet they won the case. Makes me question our legal system.

Here is a list of the mistakes they made. 1) No signed contract verifying carpet, pad, date of installation, etc... 2) Did not receive samples and unsigned contract until 3 weeks after installation. 3) They mistakenly showed up at my personal residence to install the carpet instead of the rental house. 4) They installed the wrong pad. 5) Added tax to the order after telling me over the phone the total quote, no hidden costs.

Bottom line....this was the 2nd time I worked with this company and you'd think that they would work with me to make sure that everything was done right and that I was happy with the final result, let alone make sure that they installed the right carpet. None of this happened. Do not even consider working with this company because the mistakes were endless and they took no responsibility for any of the mistakes. My rental house has since been sold and the carpet had to be removed after 1 year of use because it did not wear well. I'm $8000 poorer with nothing to show for it.
Comments:14 Replies - Latest reply on 2010-11-18
Posted by stiger on 2010-11-17:
Eh, I have a hard time believing that if they won the case.

You could have called them. You could have confirmed your color choice # or selection, gotten it in writing, etc.

And not only that, but - you weren't home when they were installing your carpet? And if, for some reason you HAD to be out- wouldn't you call to change the date to make sure it was the right carpet?

Meehhh, this one is on you.
Posted by Venice09 on 2010-11-18:
Did you respond to the Small Claims suit? Did you appear in court on the date of the hearing? If not, they probably got a default judgment. That doesn't necessarily mean they won, just that you didn't respond.

If you paid them the $8,000 then what did they sue you for?
Posted by warddw1526 on 2010-11-18:
Taxes are not a hidden cost in my books. The taxes do not go to the company, they go to the government.
Posted by werelucky on 2010-11-18:
There is a lot missing from this review. When they first showed up to your home why didn't you check the color and pad then? I con only assume the tenant or property manager at the rental property let the installers in and signed any paperwork. That's why you may of lost the case in small claims court. If it was a rental property you should of been able to offset the cost of the carpet on your taxes. Once the property sold it was no longer your carpet. It seems as though there was bad communication on both sides.
Posted by Anonymous on 2010-11-18:
What if everything is an illusion and nothing exists? In that case, you definitely overpaid for your carpet.
Posted by trmn8r on 2010-11-18:
Isn't what *you* did wrong not insisting on a signed contract, showing the carpet color?

The court evidently felt they did everything right, if you lost the case. What happened in court?
Posted by SteveWiginowski on 2010-11-18:
The reason you most likely lost the case is because they did perform work at your place, so they can reasonably expect to receive fair compensation for it. For example, if someone shovels snow from your sidewalk, and you see them (but don't tell them to stop), then they can expect you to pay them even though you never agreed to.

The lack of a contract would matter a bit, but for them to get into your place and do the work indicates that someone let them in and perform the work. Without the contract, you should not have allowed for them to perform any work.

Maybe in a million years $8000 worth of a wrong colored carpet could be worth $1 in today's money?
Posted by momsey on 2010-11-18:
Steve, your point is right on, but your example is bad. If I see someone shoveling my sidewalk but I didn't ask them to, I don't think I'm going to be running out to get them to stop. I'm also not going to pay them.

#1 mistake is a mistake on the OP's part as well. We need more info on the court case.
Posted by SteveWiginowski on 2010-11-18:
Momsey, I believe under business law, if you see them performing work, but don't stop them, then you are expected to pay them a fair value for the work performed.
Posted by Anonymous on 2010-11-18:
So the fellas at intersections and traffic jams in New York are then entitled by this supposed law to be paid for their window cleaning services? I would love to see a statute of some sort that clearly defines that I have to pay for unsolicited work.
Posted by SteveWiginowski on 2010-11-18:
Bud, if you tell them to stop or not to do it, and they continue to do it, then you don't have to pay them. If you let them do it and don't pay, then they could take you to court. I doubt it that they would take you to court, probably just get mad or hit your car with something is all.
Posted by Venice09 on 2010-11-18:
Steve, I think you're right about the window washers but not so right about the snow. I think a person has to do more than see someone shoveling the snow. I could look out my window and see someone shoveling but they would have no way of knowing. I think it has to be acknowledged in order for payment to be required.

I have a feeling the OP didn't show up in court for the hearing because it was "miles away", and the company got a default judgment. That doesn't necessarily mean they won the case. I still don't understand why the OP was sued if the $8,000 was paid.
Posted by Anonymous on 2010-11-18:
Steve> I hate to sound Stew-ish here, but that explanation doesn't constitute the written proof of law that I was asking for. I'd love to see that in a statute somewhere. If not, I'm not buying it. If produced, then I would be the first in line to apologize and ask for seconds on a plate of crow.
Posted by SteveWiginowski on 2010-11-18:
The only thing I could find (when doing a quick search) is something about a quasi-contract. Basically it says that if goods or services were rendered and the person receiving them has to know that they were receiving them. The link I did find, I wasn't sure if it would post well in here (since it was to a book). But here's a wikipedia link (I know, wikipedia isn't exactly the best source). I just remember learning this type of thing in Business Law classes in college (I am not a lawyer, they were required classes for all business majors).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-contract

Your Name:
(displayed with your comment)
Your E-mail:
(required)

Your Experience/Advice:
Check spelling


By clicking submit you agree that you have read and accept the Terms of Service & Privacy Policy.


Note: All comments are reviewed by a moderator before being published. Please be sure to read our guidelines before commenting.