Location: Utah ## TLDR Paid $1,400 of $2,800 for engineering report. Report missing multiple promised deliverables. Company's own contract states "Any questions or discrepancies that the homeowner or contractor has must be made in writing." We submitted written questions. Their CEO responded "we will not be providing a written response" and demands we bring legal counsel to a Zoom meeting. Are they violating their own contract terms? What are the legal implications? ## Background Hired an engineering firm for a "Phase III Expert Report" on a retaining wall. Total cost: $2,800. Paid $1,425 upfront, remaining $1,375 due upon completion. **Invoice explicitly promised these deliverables:** 1. Site visit and observations ✓ (delivered) 2. Opinions on wall condition ✓ (delivered) 3. **Recommendations for redirecting water from hillside** ✗ (NOT delivered) 4. **Any Analysis required to understand the existing condition** ✗ (NOT delivered - report states "No analysis or testing were performed") 5. **Specification and explanation of monitoring devices and their installation** ✗ (NOT delivered - only vague mention) 6. Monitoring recommendations ~ (partially delivered) 7. Stabilization recommendations ✓ (delivered) 8. Senior engineer review ✓ (delivered) Report took 2 months instead of the stated 1 month. When received, it basically says "hire a geotechnical engineer to do actual analysis" - which raises the question of what we paid $2,800 for. ## What Happened When We Raised Our Concerns **Sept 21** - We emailed detailed list of missing deliverables, asked for clarification **Sept 21** - Project engineer responds: "Let's schedule a Zoom meeting" **Sept 21** - We replied: "We prefer written communication so we can process the information and have a record" **Sept 26** - Follow-up email asking for written response **Sept 26** - Project engineer again: "Let's set up a meeting" **Sept 26** - We again requested written communication **Sept 26** - **CEO responds: "For clarity, we will not be providing a written response. Instead, we request a Zoom meeting to review the report together and discuss next steps. We would also like your legal counsel to attend this meeting."** **Sept 26** - We explained we don't have legal counsel, we're just homeowners trying to understand why deliverables are missing, and we prefer written communication **Sept 26** - CEO: **"I am well aware. I'm once again asking for a meeting with you and your legal counsel so that we can best support you in this report."** **Sept 26** - We said this "escalated quickly" from asking about missing items to being told to "lawyer up," called behavior "predatory" **Sept 26** - We reluctantly offered to meet during week of Oct 13-17 (against our better judgment, due to work schedules) **Oct 1 (24+ hours later)** - CEO accepts the meeting offer ## Additional Context - We're not trying to avoid paying for legitimate work. We're trying to understand why we paid $2,800 for a report that lacks the promised analysis and essentially tells us to hire another engineer to do the actual engineering work. - We have kept it professional with all interactions. At worst, we have called them shady because red flags are going off for us. - Their invoice states in fine print: "Any questions or discrepancies that the homeowner or contractor has must be made in writing." ## What We're Considering **Option A:** Send formal demand letter stating: - They're violating their own contract terms by refusing written response - We're withholding remaining payment due to material breach - Offer to settle for no additional payment (they keep $1,425 for work performed, we part ways) - If no response in 7 days, file licensing complaint and small claims **Option B:** Rescind the meeting offer, send demand letter requiring written response per their contract terms ## Specific Legal Questions 1. Is our interpretation of the "must be made in writing" clause reasonable? (That it requires bilateral written communication, not just one-sided) 2. Can they successfully argue in court that only questions need to be written but responses can be verbal? 3. Does their CEO explicitly stating "we will not be providing a written response" constitute an admission they understand the requirement applies to responses but are choosing to violate it? 4. Are we justified in withholding payment for services explicitly promised but not delivered? 5. What's the legal implication of them demanding we bring legal counsel to discuss a simple service dispute? Does this suggest they know they're in the wrong? 6. Should we report to DOPL even if we reach a financial settlement, given the potential public safety implications of inadequate structural engineering reports? **What would you do? Are we crazy for thinking their contract requires written responses? Is this bad faith dealing or standard business practice?** We’d really appreciate your perspective on the legal implications of this situation.