Bee Canyon Construction

08/26/9:AM FAX tal 0001/ BEE CANYON CONSTRUCTION P.OBOX 503S SANDIEGO.CAW'OR.NIA 921SO July 30, Revdex.com of San Diego Viewridge Ave., Ste San Diego, CA Re: Response of Bee Canyon Construction ("BCC") to the complaint of [redacted] dba A-***[redacted] ID # [redacted] Dear Revdex.com or To Whom It May Concern: This letter is being submitted to you in response to notification from the Revdex.com of the above referenced complaint From the information that BCC received, the purported complaint hollowly alleges “abandonment of contracted job" and that the problem occurred on 04/16/ ' The claimant [redacted] dba A-***- [redacted] ("GC") who was the general contractor on a project in rural Rainbo , CaliforniaBCC was contacted and solicited by GC who represented himself to be a California licensed General Contractor that had contracted with the real property Owner to complete a construction project GC requested that BCC meet him at the Project Site for GC to show BCC what GC wanted doneBasically, GC wanted some earthwork perfonned to construct a pad pursuant to the site review, the stakes set by GC and a copy of a County report from According to GC, the pad was for a mobile home that OC was going to move onto the site for the OwnerGC asked for pricing for BCC to perform the scope of work defined by GCIn response, BCC provided GC a written proposal in early February, As is standard for this type of work, the proposal contained exclusions for unforeseen site conditions such as rock and underground utility lines, e.g., water After not hearing back from GC, BCC believed BCC's involvement was doneHowever, in early April, 2013, GC sent BCC emails indicating that the County was requiring GC to make changes or upgrades to the Report from BCC then received an email from GC with drawings attached that indicated where the County wanted "'slices" or ten foot deep holes dug into the groundGC requested that BCC come to the site and dig the ..slices" and BCC agreed The reason for the slices is that the County wanted to inspect the soil at a foot depth to detenninc the suitability of the soH for a potential septic systemJfthc County determined the soil to be unsuit***, then a septic system would be prohibitedWithout the ability to have a septic system, there was no need for a padOn the other hand, if the County determined the soil to be suit***, then there could be a septic system that would allow for the placement of a mobile home, which in tum would necessitate the pad scope of work previously defined by GC Pursuant to GC's request, BCC went to the site and dug the slices for GC and the County inspectorBCC and GC verbally discussed the slices work and how the County's determination affected further proceedingsBased on these discussions, GC made the fact abundantly clear that if the County approved the suitability of soil, then BCC was to immediately proceed with the earthwork for the pad On April2013, with GC and the County inspector present, BCC completed the "slices" workThe County inspector gave his approval at the site GC directed DCC to start the earthwork for the pad and BCC promptly started to scratch out the pad as directed on April 9, On April 10, 2013, BCC hit and broke an unmarked, underground inch water pipeBCC timely notified GC and repaired the lineOn approximately April 12, GC telephoned BCC when BCC was working on the pad GC was upset and told BCC that he was at fault for breaking the water line and BCC needed to go clean up some dirt that had washed across a road from the broken water line BCC was willing to do it and did do itbut BCC reminded OC that in their agreement, BCC is not responsible for underground water lines and that is a standard exclusion like the rock clauseIn response to this statementGC yelled back over the phone that "YOU DON'HAVE ANY CONTRACT!" Up until this point, BCC assumed that there was an agreement based on the past communications, conduct and trust, but when GC expressly disavowed the existence of "any contract" with BCC, BCC realized that GC was not trustworthy and BCC did not in fact have any · contract in writing signed by GC as GC never did return the proposal or issue a contract as GC had earlier stated GC would doGC admits the fact that GC told BCC that BCC did not have any contractIn an email from BCC to GC, BCC stated that "[e]verything was good till a broken water line put two wheelbarrows of dirt on the neighbor's roadAt this time we helped repair the inlineI asked that you send someone to clean up the road, as my contract read that I was not responsible for repairing broken linesYou then got real nasty and said that I didn't have a contract." In GC's reply email, GC stated that "I told you we dida't have a siped proposal/ coatraet by yoa ...." BCC continued with the pad work, emailed photos to GC and GC measured and obsaved the work as it proceededln addition to the water line, BCC broke and removed rockAthe pad was nearing completionGC arranged for a meeting at the Project SiteOn April 17, 2013, GC, the Owner and BCC met to examine the earthwork for the pad and discuss any existing objections or issuesGC and Owner wholly complimented the workwere extremely pleased and did not make any objection or complaints Since GC disavowed the existence of any contractincluc6ng exclusions for the underground water line and rock that was encountered, the price and scope of work were in disputeGC was not going to pay BCC pursuant to the proposal and BCC hadto compromise to get paidThe work and a new price was discussed DCC was requested to do some additional work, including breaking and removing some rock, which BCC performed The compromised, new agreement reached was for payment of $9,for acceptance and completion of the workBased on that compromised agreement, BCC received payment of $9,and provided a receipt for "completion of grading of [redacted] Rainbow Way." Common sense dictates that BCC would not have been paid ifthere had been any failure ofBCC to perfonn the scope ofwork as requested and defined by GCIf BCC had not performed the pad work pursuant to the direction and satisfaction of GC and the Owner, then BCC would not have been paid $9,for completion of the work While BCC was performing the pad work, GC was evidently doing work to gain approval for the septic system designBased on papers BCC receivedon or about April I S-18, 2013, the County appears to have approved GC's septic system submittal subject to stated conditionsThe County's revisions and conditions materially changed the design and scope of work for the septic system that GC had previously described For example, the County approved septic system required a chambered system installed in to S foot trenches Based on the County's revisions and conditions for the septic system, GC requested BCC to provide GC with pricing for this work pursuant to the County approved designBased on GC's previous conduct and refusal to recognize a contract, BCC was not too eagerShortly after GC's request, on April 24, 2013, GC sent BCC an email informing BCC that GC had awardthe contract for the septic system to another contractor GC's email dated 04/24/13, states that "***, In lieu of the fact that you haven't sent me a new proposal for the septic and that 1do not find your company competent in the installation of a chambered septic system for my clients project, I have awarded the contract to a reput [redacted] septic contractor ....." Thus.the conclusion is obvious that ere is not any contractual relationship or contractual obligation for BCC to perfonn any further work at the Project GC did in fact hire another contractor to petform the installation of the revised chambered septic systemOn or about May 17, 2013, GC asked BCC to meet GC and the other contractor at the site on May 24, On May 24, 2013, BCC went to the site and met with GCThe primary focus of the meeting addressed issues with the septic system workEvidently, the septic system contractor that GC hired encountered rock when digging the first trench and he had a rock clause in his contractThus, this contractor wanted to be paid ex1ra for rock removalGC wanted BCC to come back with BCC's breaker and remove rocks when they were encountered by the other contractorBCC did not feel that doing so would be feasible plus BCC did not want to interfere with another contractor's conuact so BCC declined BCC subsequently spoke with the septic system contractor who informed BCC that he did have a written contract for the septic system and had a rock clauseWhen he encountered the rock, he considered removal to be extra work and requested the change, but it was not accepted or approvedThus, he left the ProjectContrary to the contentions of GC, BCC did not have any obligation to perform further work following this contractor's departure The preceding facts conclusively demonstrate that there is not any abandonment pursuant to Busn& ProfCode section 7107, which addresses ..Abandonment." The facts demonstrate that: (I) GC never accepted any proposal or signed any contract; (2) months went by before BCC was requested to perform a new task for the "slices"; (3) a few days into the pad work, GC expressly disavowed the existence of any contract or exclusions; (4) GC subsequently admitted in writing that he told BCC there was not any contract; (5) on 04/17/13, the partiresolved the "no contract" dispute by compromising on a new agreement or accord, which was satisfied; (6) tbe septic system work was materially revised by the County and GC requested pricing from BCC; (7) on 04/24113, GC informed BCC in writing that GC had awarded the septic work to another contractor, which GC did; and, (7) this contractor for the septic system subsequently left the project due to GCs failure to honor his contract There simply was not any existing underlying obligation to perform by BCCThere is not any agreement or obligation to abandon In addition, assumtng arguendo the existence of an underlying obligation, the conclusion is axiomatic that BCC would be legally excused ftom further performance I trust that the preceding sufficiently responds to the complaint by GC to the Revdex.comI submit that GC's claim lacks merit and is based on ulterior motives or GCPlease contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions concerning the preceding matters Very Truly Yours,

Revdex.com: I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted] , and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below ] Regards, [redacted] ***

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID ***, and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint. For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below
Regards,
*** ***

08/26/2014 9:28 AM FAX                                      �...⇄ tal 0001/0004
 
BEE CANYON CONSTRUCTION
P.O. BOX 503S06
SANDIEGO.CAW'OR.NIA 921SO
 
July 30, 2014
Revdex.com of San Diego
4747 Viewridge Ave., Ste 200
San Diego, CA 92123
 
Re:      Response of Bee Canyon Construction ("BCC") to the complaint of
[redacted] dba A-[redacted]
ID # [redacted]
 
Dear Revdex.com or To Whom It May Concern:
 
This letter is being submitted to you in response to notification from the Revdex.com of the above referenced complaint.  From the information that BCC received, the purported complaint hollowly alleges “abandonment of contracted job" and that the problem occurred on 04/16/13.
' The claimant [redacted] dba A-[redacted] ("GC") who was the general contractor  on a project in rural Rainbo , California. BCC was contacted and solicited by GC who represented himself to be a California  licensed General Contractor  that had contracted with the real property
Owner to complete a construction project.
 
GC requested that BCC meet him at the Project Site for GC to show BCC what GC wanted done. Basically, GC wanted some earthwork perfonned to construct a pad pursuant to the site review, the stakes set by GC and a copy of a County report from 1978. According to GC, the pad was for a mobile home that OC was going to move onto the site for the Owner. GC asked for pricing for BCC to perform the scope of work defined by GC. In response, BCC provided GC a written proposal in early February, 2013. As is standard for this type of work, the proposal contained exclusions for unforeseen site conditions such as rock and underground utility lines, e.g., water.
 
After not hearing back from GC, BCC believed BCC's involvement was done. However, in early April, 2013, GC sent BCC emails indicating that the County was requiring GC to make changes or upgrades to the Report from 1978. BCC then received an email from GC with drawings attached that indicated where the County wanted "'slices" or ten foot deep holes dug into the ground. GC requested that BCC come to the site and dig the ..slices" and BCC agreed.
 
The reason for the slices is that the County wanted to inspect the soil at a 10 foot depth to detenninc the suitability of the soH for a potential septic system. Jfthc County determined the soil
to be unsuit[redacted], then a septic system would be prohibited. Without the ability to have a septic system, there was no need for a pad. On the other hand, if the County determined the soil to be suit[redacted], then there could be a septic system that would allow for the placement of a mobile home, which in tum would necessitate the pad scope of work previously defined by GC.
 
Pursuant to GC's request, BCC went to the site and dug the slices for GC and the County inspector. BCC and GC verbally discussed the slices work and how the County's determination affected further proceedings. Based on these discussions, GC made the fact abundantly clear that if the County approved the suitability of soil, then BCC was to immediately proceed with the earthwork for the pad.
 
On April97 2013, with GC and the County inspector present, BCC completed the "slices" work. The County inspector gave his approval at the site.  GC directed DCC to start the earthwork for the pad and BCC promptly started to scratch out the pad as directed on April 9, 2013. On April 10, 2013, BCC hit and broke an unmarked, underground 3 inch water pipe. BCC timely notified GC and repaired the line. On approximately April 12, 2013. GC telephoned BCC when BCC was working on the pad.  GC was upset and told BCC that he was at fault for breaking the water line and BCC needed to go clean up some dirt that had washed across a road from the broken water line.  BCC was willing to do it and did do it. but BCC reminded OC that in their agreement, BCC is not responsible for underground water lines and that is a standard exclusion like the rock clause. In response to this statement. GC yelled back over the phone that "YOU DON'HAVE ANY CONTRACT!"
 
Up until this point, BCC assumed that there was an agreement based on the past communications, conduct and trust, but when GC expressly  disavowed  the existence of "any contract" with BCC, BCC realized that GC was not trustworthy and BCC did not in fact have any · contract in writing signed by GC as GC never did return the proposal or issue a contract as GC had earlier stated GC would do. GC admits the fact that GC told BCC that BCC did not have any contract. In an email from BCC to GC, BCC stated that "[e]verything  was good till a broken water line put two wheelbarrows of dirt on the neighbor's road. At this time we helped repair the
3 in. line. I asked that you send someone to clean up the road, as my contract read that I was not responsible for repairing broken lines. You then got real nasty and said that I didn't have a contract." In GC's reply email, GC stated that "I told you we dida't have a siped proposal/ coatraet by yoa ...."
 
BCC continued with the pad work, emailed photos to GC and GC measured and obsaved the work as it proceeded. ln addition to the water line, BCC broke and removed rock. A3 the pad was nearing completion. GC arranged for a meeting at the Project Site. On April 17, 2013, GC, the Owner and BCC met to examine the earthwork for the pad and discuss any existing objections or issues. GC and Owner wholly complimented the work. were extremely pleased and did not make any objection or complaints.
 
Since GC disavowed the  existence of  any contract. incluc6ng  exclusions for the underground water line and rock that was encountered, the price and scope of work were in dispute. GC was not going to pay BCC pursuant to the proposal and BCC had. to compromise to get paid. The work and a new price was discussed.  DCC was requested to do some additional
work, including breaking and removing some rock, which BCC performed.  The compromised, new agreement reached was for payment of $9,000 for acceptance and completion of the work. Based on that compromised agreement, BCC received payment of $9,000 and provided a receipt for "completion of grading of [redacted] Rainbow Way." Common sense dictates that BCC would not have been paid ifthere had been any failure ofBCC to perfonn the scope ofwork as requested and defined by GC. If BCC had not performed the pad work pursuant to the direction and satisfaction of GC and the Owner, then BCC would not have been paid $9,000 for completion of the work
 
While BCC was performing the pad work, GC was evidently doing work to gain approval for the septic system design. Based on papers BCC received. on or about April I S-18, 2013, the County appears to have approved GC's septic system submittal subject to stated conditions. The County's  revisions and conditions materially changed the design and scope of work for the septic system that GC had previously described.  For example, the County approved septic system required a chambered system installed in 4 to S foot  trenches.
 
Based on the County's revisions and conditions for the septic system, GC requested BCC to provide GC with pricing for this work pursuant to the County approved design. Based on GC's previous  conduct  and refusal to recognize a contract, BCC was not too eager. Shortly after GC's request, on April 24, 2013, GC sent BCC an email informing BCC that GC had awardthe contract for the septic system to another contractor.
 
GC's email dated 04/24/13, states that "[redacted], In lieu of the fact that you haven't sent me a new proposal for the septic and that 1do not find your company competent in the installation of a chambered septic system for my clients project, I have awarded the contract to a reput[redacted] septic contractor ....." Thus.the conclusion is obvious that ere is not any contractual relationship or contractual obligation for BCC to perfonn any further work at the Project
 
GC did in fact hire another contractor to petform the installation of the revised chambered septic system. On or about May 17, 2013, GC asked BCC to meet GC and the other contractor at the site on May 24, 2013. On May 24, 2013, BCC went to the site and met with GC. The primary focus of the meeting addressed issues with the septic system work. Evidently, the septic system contractor that GC hired encountered rock when digging the first trench and he had a rock clause in his contract. Thus, this contractor wanted to be paid ex1ra for rock removal. GC wanted BCC to come back with BCC's breaker and remove rocks when they were encountered by the other contractor. BCC did not feel that doing so would be feasible plus BCC did not want to interfere with another contractor's conuact so BCC declined.
 
BCC subsequently spoke with the septic system contractor who informed BCC that he did have a written contract for the septic system and had a rock clause. When he encountered the rock, he considered removal to be extra work and requested the change, but it was not accepted or approved. Thus, he left the Project. Contrary to the contentions of GC, BCC did not have any obligation to perform further work following this contractor's departure.
 
The preceding facts conclusively demonstrate that there is not any abandonment pursuant
to Busn. & Prof. Code section 7107, which addresses ..Abandonment." The facts demonstrate
 
that: (I)  GC never accepted any proposal or signed any contract;  (2) months went by before BCC was requested  to perform a new task for the "slices"; (3) a few days into the pad work, GC expressly disavowed the existence of any contract or exclusions; (4) GC subsequently admitted in writing that he told BCC there was not any contract; (5) on 04/17/13, the partiresolved the "no contract" dispute by compromising on a new agreement or accord, which was satisfied; (6) tbe septic system work was materially  revised by the County and GC requested pricing from BCC; (7) on 04/24113, GC informed  BCC in writing that GC had awarded the septic work to another contractor, which GC did; and, (7) this contractor for the septic system subsequently left the project due to GCs failure to honor his contract.
 
There simply was not any existing underlying obligation to perform by BCC. There is not any agreement or obligation to abandon.  In addition,  assumtng arguendo the existence of an underlying obligation, the conclusion is axiomatic that BCC would be legally excused ftom further performance.
 
I trust that the preceding sufficiently responds to the complaint by GC to the Revdex.com. I submit that GC's claim lacks merit and is based on ulterior motives or GC. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions concerning the preceding matters.
 
 
Very Truly Yours,

Revdex.com:
I have reviewed the response made by the business in reference to complaint ID [redacted], and have determined that this proposed action would not resolve my complaint.  For your reference, details of the offer I reviewed appear below.
]
Regards,
[redacted]

08/26/2014 
#0f0f0f;">9:28 AM FAX                                      �...⇄ tal 0001/0004
 
BEE CANYON CONSTRUCTION
P.O. BOX 503S06
SANDIEGO.CAW'OR.NIA 921SO
 
July 30, 2014
Revdex.com of San Diego
4747 Viewridge Ave., Ste 200
San Diego, CA 92123
 
Re:      Response of Bee Canyon Construction ("BCC") to the complaint of
[redacted] dba A-[redacted]..[redacted]
ID # [redacted]
 
Dear Revdex.com or To Whom It May Concern:
 
This letter is being submitted to you in response to notification from the Revdex.com of the above referenced complaint.  From the information that BCC received, the purported complaint hollowly alleges “abandonment of contracted job" and that the problem occurred on 04/16/13.
' The claimant [redacted] dba A-[redacted] ("GC") who was the general contractor  on a project in rural Rainbo , California. BCC was contacted and solicited by GC who represented himself to be a California  licensed General Contractor  that had contracted with the real property
Owner to complete a construction project.
 
GC requested that BCC meet him at the Project Site for GC to show BCC what GC wanted done. Basically, GC wanted some earthwork perfonned to construct a pad pursuant to the site review, the stakes set by GC and a copy of a County report from 1978. According to GC, the pad was for a mobile home that OC was going to move onto the site for the Owner. GC asked for pricing for BCC to perform the scope of work defined by GC. In response, BCC provided GC a written proposal in early February, 2013. As is standard for this type of work, the proposal contained exclusions for unforeseen site conditions such as rock and underground utility lines, e.g., water.
 
After not hearing back from GC, BCC believed BCC's involvement was done. However, in early April, 2013, GC sent BCC emails indicating that the County was requiring GC to make changes or upgrades to the Report from 1978. BCC then received an email from GC with drawings attached that indicated where the County wanted "'slices" or ten foot deep holes dug into the ground. GC requested that BCC come to the site and dig the ..slices" and BCC agreed.
 
The reason for the slices is that the County wanted to inspect the soil at a 10 foot depth to detenninc the suitability of the soH for a potential septic system. Jfthc County determined the soil
to be unsuit[redacted], then a septic system would be prohibited. Without the ability to have a septic system, there was no need for a pad. On the other hand, if the County determined the soil to be suit[redacted], then there could be a septic system that would allow for the placement of a mobile home, which in tum would necessitate the pad scope of work previously defined by GC.
 
Pursuant to GC's request, BCC went to the site and dug the slices for GC and the County inspector. BCC and GC verbally discussed the slices work and how the County's determination affected further proceedings. Based on these discussions, GC made the fact abundantly clear that if the County approved the suitability of soil, then BCC was to immediately proceed with the earthwork for the pad.
 
On April97 2013, with GC and the County inspector present, BCC completed the "slices" work. The County inspector gave his approval at the site.  GC directed DCC to start the earthwork for the pad and BCC promptly started to scratch out the pad as directed on April 9, 2013. On April 10, 2013, BCC hit and broke an unmarked, underground 3 inch water pipe. BCC timely notified GC and repaired the line. On approximately April 12, 2013. GC telephoned BCC when BCC was working on the pad.  GC was upset and told BCC that he was at fault for breaking the water line and BCC needed to go clean up some dirt that had washed across a road from the broken water line.  BCC was willing to do it and did do it. but BCC reminded OC that in their agreement, BCC is not responsible for underground water lines and that is a standard exclusion like the rock clause. In response to this statement. GC yelled back over the phone that "YOU DON'HAVE ANY CONTRACT!"
 
Up until this point, BCC assumed that there was an agreement based on the past communications, conduct and trust, but when GC expressly  disavowed  the existence of "any contract" with BCC, BCC realized that GC was not trustworthy and BCC did not in fact have any · contract in writing signed by GC as GC never did return the proposal or issue a contract as GC had earlier stated GC would do. GC admits the fact that GC told BCC that BCC did not have any contract. In an email from BCC to GC, BCC stated that "[e]verything  was good till a broken water line put two wheelbarrows of dirt on the neighbor's road. At this time we helped repair the
3 in. line. I asked that you send someone to clean up the road, as my contract read that I was not responsible for repairing broken lines. You then got real nasty and said that I didn't have a contract." In GC's reply email, GC stated that "I told you we dida't have a siped proposal/ coatraet by yoa ...."
 
BCC continued with the pad work, emailed photos to GC and GC measured and obsaved the work as it proceeded. ln addition to the water line, BCC broke and removed rock. A3 the pad was nearing completion. GC arranged for a meeting at the Project Site. On April 17, 2013, GC, the Owner and BCC met to examine the earthwork for the pad and discuss any existing objections or issues. GC and Owner wholly complimented the work. were extremely pleased and did not make any objection or complaints.
 
Since GC disavowed the  existence of  any contract. incluc6ng  exclusions for the underground water line and rock that was encountered, the price and scope of work were in dispute. GC was not going to pay BCC pursuant to the proposal and BCC had. to compromise to get paid. The work and a new price was discussed.  DCC was requested to do some additional
work, including breaking and removing some rock, which BCC performed.  The compromised, new agreement reached was for payment of $9,000 for acceptance and completion of the work. Based on that compromised agreement, BCC received payment of $9,000 and provided a receipt for "completion of grading of [redacted] Rainbow Way." Common sense dictates that BCC would not have been paid ifthere had been any failure ofBCC to perfonn the scope ofwork as requested and defined by GC. If BCC had not performed the pad work pursuant to the direction and satisfaction of GC and the Owner, then BCC would not have been paid $9,000 for completion of the work
 
While BCC was performing the pad work, GC was evidently doing work to gain approval for the septic system design. Based on papers BCC received. on or about April I S-18, 2013, the County appears to have approved GC's septic system submittal subject to stated conditions. The County's  revisions and conditions materially changed the design and scope of work for the septic system that GC had previously described.  For example, the County approved septic system required a chambered system installed in 4 to S foot  trenches.
 
Based on the County's revisions and conditions for the septic system, GC requested BCC to provide GC with pricing for this work pursuant to the County approved design. Based on GC's previous  conduct  and refusal to recognize a contract, BCC was not too eager. Shortly after GC's request, on April 24, 2013, GC sent BCC an email informing BCC that GC had awardthe contract for the septic system to another contractor.
 
GC's email dated 04/24/13, states that "[redacted], In lieu of the fact that you haven't sent me a new proposal for the septic and that 1do not find your company competent in the installation of a chambered septic system for my clients project, I have awarded the contract to a reput[redacted] septic contractor ....." Thus.the conclusion is obvious that ere is not any contractual relationship or contractual obligation for BCC to perfonn any further work at the Project
 
GC did in fact hire another contractor to petform the installation of the revised chambered septic system. On or about May 17, 2013, GC asked BCC to meet GC and the other contractor at the site on May 24, 2013. On May 24, 2013, BCC went to the site and met with GC. The primary focus of the meeting addressed issues with the septic system work. Evidently, the septic system contractor that GC hired encountered rock when digging the first trench and he had a rock clause in his contract. Thus, this contractor wanted to be paid ex1ra for rock removal. GC wanted BCC to come back with BCC's breaker and remove rocks when they were encountered by the other contractor. BCC did not feel that doing so would be feasible plus BCC did not want to interfere with another contractor's conuact so BCC declined.
 
BCC subsequently spoke with the septic system contractor who informed BCC that he did have a written contract for the septic system and had a rock clause. When he encountered the rock, he considered removal to be extra work and requested the change, but it was not accepted or approved. Thus, he left the Project. Contrary to the contentions of GC, BCC did not have any obligation to perform further work following this contractor's departure.
 
The preceding facts conclusively demonstrate that there is not any abandonment pursuant
to Busn. & Prof. Code section 7107, which addresses ..Abandonment." The facts demonstrate
 
that: (I)  GC never accepted any proposal or signed any contract;  (2) months went by before BCC was requested  to perform a new task for the "slices"; (3) a few days into the pad work, GC expressly disavowed the existence of any contract or exclusions; (4) GC subsequently admitted in writing that he told BCC there was not any contract; (5) on 04/17/13, the partiresolved the "no contract" dispute by compromising on a new agreement or accord, which was satisfied; (6) tbe septic system work was materially  revised by the County and GC requested pricing from BCC; (7) on 04/24113, GC informed  BCC in writing that GC had awarded the septic work to another contractor, which GC did; and, (7) this contractor for the septic system subsequently left the project due to GCs failure to honor his contract.
 
There simply was not any existing underlying obligation to perform by BCC. There is not any agreement or obligation to abandon.  In addition,  assumtng arguendo the existence of an underlying obligation, the conclusion is axiomatic that BCC would be legally excused ftom further performance.
 
I trust that the preceding sufficiently responds to the complaint by GC to the Revdex.com. I submit that GC's claim lacks merit and is based on ulterior motives or GC. Please contact me at your earliest convenience if you have any questions concerning the preceding matters.
 
 
Very Truly Yours,