I say the Contractor is STILL Responsible

[iwire]

I assume you need to shut down the panel late at nignt because you are changing bolt on style breaker and you would be in direct contact with the buss.

Bolt on or stab in you are required to shut down the panel to install the breaker.

 

[kwired]

Bolt on or stab in you are required to shut down the panel to install the breaker.

you are also required to shut it down just to remove the cover on the panel (I think). So if the installer had any other work to do in the panel he should have already had a shutdown planned.

 

[iwire]

you are also required to shut it down just to remove the cover on the panel (I think). So if the installer had any other work to do in the panel he should have already had a shutdown planned.

You could open it hot with proper PPE.

 

[shepelec]

I highlighted the main point i wanted to address. The contractor did install a code violation when he 'relocated' it. He had to run new wire etc.. to put it on a new wall. Thats when it became 'his' code violation. Basically the way it works here is that if you 'touch' it , then its yours and must comply.

Would you say the same thing if it was in your house and you pay an electrician to relocate a 20 amp receptacle on a new wall that was built, and it turns out that receptacle was on a 40 amp breaker??

That statement would tell me the contractor owns it. If he ran new wire back to the panel and landed it on the 70A breaker then he is wrong. Instead of altering the violation he recreated it.

 

[AV ELECTRIC]

I would submit a request for information on how to proceed . Stating there is a violation with the original install and you cant reconnect without installing a code compliant sized breaker of coarse giving specific details in the RFI . Then when they tell you to install a new breaker give them a change order.

 

[One-eyed Jack]

I say the owner should pay the contractor to fix it since it was not but should have been on the plans.I say the contractor should fix it and charge the owner. Tell the owner before you do it, but do it.

I agree. This is how Phil Green explained it to me. The engineer is required to design to code;the contractor is required to install to code; and the owner is required to pay. He says that the court system upholds that almost 100 percent. FPN Phil Green was the author of the first Law and Administration book I ever saw. This was in 1979. I have personally seen this to be true more than once in the past 30 years. Mistakes are made but the owner ultimately has to pay for them. There is some give and take and some shared "blame" but the owner usually shares the cost.

 

[Sierrasparky]

I agree. This is how Phil Green explained it to me. The engineer is required to design to code;the contractor is required to install to code; and the owner is required to pay. He says that the court system upholds that almost 100 percent. FPN Phil Green was the author of the first Law and Administration book I ever saw. This was in 1979. I have personally seen this to be true more than once in the past 30 years. Mistakes are made but the owner ultimately has to pay for them. There is some give and take and some shared "blame" but the owner usually shares the cost.

Good point!
If I just moved the conductors or extended them and only shut the breaker off to perform the work then there is no issue as I did not install the breaker. anything other than that I think it's the EC's issue. However I would consider not turning the breaker back on until the issue was addressed. In this case the owner needs the proper breaker. If it was known in advance he would have had to purchase a breaker.

 

[One-eyed Jack]

Good point!
If I just moved the conductors or extended them and only shut the breaker off to perform the work then there is no issue as I did not install the breaker. anything other than that I think it's the EC's issue. However I would consider not turning the breaker back on until the issue was addressed. In this case the owner needs the proper breaker. If it was known in advance he would have had to purchase a breaker.

Bottom line is it needs to be fixed and the owner is likely to pay for it. The inspector is not responsible for designating WHO fixes, just that it be fixed. The court system can sort that out. If I was the EC and it was a regular customer, ie GC that I worked for I would eat the breaker and move on.

 

[brother]

Brother I think what many of us are saying is 'where would you have our responsibility end'?

What if the feeder to the panel this circuit comes from has violations?

What if there are 100.26 issues at the panel?

What if the service supplying the building has violations?

We do what we are paid to do and if more is needed someone will have to pay us to do it.

I understand your point, I'm just going off of what I've seen inspectors do. If new wire (#8 awg in this case) was installed on a branch circuit that was oversized where in my opinion, (and inspectors ive seen enforce in the past) is the contractors responsibility to be sure they dont do that.

'Where does the responsibility of the contractor end you ask? '' Basically whatever he directly touches. Since the contractor directly installed 'part' of a branch circuit and receptacle on the wrong circuit then its his fault.

If the issue was just the panel or the service or feeder to the panel, then I would agree since the contractor did not directly deal with that. The contractor 'touch' the branch circuit so that point on its his responsibility. I would side with the Inspector over this issue, (which is surprising cause I tend to disagree with the inspectors that enforce opinions instead of code).


Im curious what you think of this scenerio. Suppose you go to a homeowner, and they ask you to install 2 20amp duplex receptacles, basically an extension from the same receptacle using #12 awg. you do it, but later find out that branch circuit was fed off a 30 amp. Is what you did a 'code compliant' install? Remember we are not talking about the service or the feeder to a panel.

 

[petersonra]

Im curious what you think of this scenerio. Suppose you go to a homeowner, and they ask you to install 2 20amp duplex receptacles, basically an extension from the same receptacle using #12 awg. you do it, but later find out that branch circuit was fed off a 30 amp. Is what you did a 'code compliant' install? Remember we are not talking about the service or the feeder to a panel.

You put 20A receptacles on a 30A BC. Why you did it is not at issue. You are not responsible for fixing the old problem, but you can't create a new problem.

I am sort of ambivalent about the situation described in this post as far as who pays to fix it, but I think I agree with the inspector that it cannot be left as the EC installed it. The EC has an obligation to only do work IAW the code and the work does not meet code.

I say unwire the CB at the PB and get the inspection done. The thing passes inspection and the EC goes home and lets the other people fight out who pays to fix the thing, and how.

 

[iwire]

I understand your point, I'm just going off of what I've seen inspectors do. If new wire (#8 awg in this case) was installed on a branch circuit that was oversized where in my opinion, (and inspectors ive seen enforce in the past) is the contractors responsibility to be sure they dont do that.

'Where does the responsibility of the contractor end you ask? '' Basically whatever he directly touches. Since the contractor directly installed 'part' of a branch circuit and receptacle on the wrong circuit then its his fault.

If the issue was just the panel or the service or feeder to the panel, then I would agree since the contractor did not directly deal with that. The contractor 'touch' the branch circuit so that point on its his responsibility. I would side with the Inspector over this issue, (which is surprising cause I tend to disagree with the inspectors that enforce opinions instead of code).

I do not agree that just because the contractor 'touched the circuit' he is on the hook to fix any and all problems with it.

Again, I do what I am paid to do, if I was not paid or asked to change the breaker I am not going to do it for free. If the job does not pass inspection the customer can pay me or hire someone else to do it. I do this work to earn a living not be a charity.

Im curious what you think of this scenerio. Suppose you go to a homeowner, and they ask you to install 2 20amp duplex receptacles, basically an extension from the same receptacle using #12 awg. you do it, but later find out that branch circuit was fed off a 30 amp. Is what you did a 'code compliant' install? Remember we are not talking about the service or the feeder to a panel.

Same answer as above.

 

[hillbilly1]

I would do the same exact thing. The engineer specs are what I follow. Good, bad, or ugly. He carries insurance for mistakes.

In the court of law, if you have an inkling thought of it being wrong, it don't matter if an engineer designed it wrong, you are still responsible, the lawyers will push that you are the professional,and should have known better. Learned that one the hard way. I no longer accept the college educated EE is always correct, and since then I have sent many prints back to the engineer to correct. (and the items were corrected on the print)

 

[roger]

In the court of law, if you have an inkling thought of it being wrong, it don't matter if an engineer designed it wrong, you are still responsible, the lawyers will push that you are the professional,and should have known better. Learned that one the hard way. I no longer accept the college educated EE is always correct, and since then I have sent many prints back to the engineer to correct. (and the items were corrected on the print)

I agree, it's not a question of the engineers design being correct, it's an omission and an EC only needs to bring it to someones attention. I would not connect my new conductors to the over sized breaker but, I wouldn't supply one for free either.

If we are talking QOB, BAB, or large frame breakers we could be talking hundreds to thousands of dollars and I am not springing for this expense.

Roger

 

[LawnGuyLandSparky]

I agree with Bob, the contractor didn't install the violation, he simply relocated an existing violation. If the scope of the work was to "abandon/remove/demolish existing" and "install new 50a 2P 240 v circuit, receptacle and OC protection" you know the bill would be higher, and so did the customer and the EE.

 

[brother]

I agree with Bob, the contractor didn't install the violation, he simply relocated an existing violation. If the scope of the work was to "abandon/remove/demolish existing" and "install new 50a 2P 240 v circuit, receptacle and OC protection" you know the bill would be higher, and so did the customer and the EE.

Interesting to see others philosophical look on this. You say he 'didn't install the violation'.

Lets go through some steps here.

1. The contract language specifically says to install all work according to NEC 2008 code and local codes.

2. The 'new wire' HE hooked up to a 'branch' circuit that was oversized, is this a violation of NEC 2008 code?? Yes or No? Answer YES, it is a violation.

3. The 50 amp receptacle that has a listing that says 'do not install on a branch ciruit above 50 amp' and HE hooked up this receptacle to the branch circuit that was over sized, is this a violation of NEC 2008 code?? Yes or No. Answer YES, it is a violation.

I'm sorry, just because an EE says to do something doesn't mean it's right as someone here says they learned the hard way, since a court would look at the electrical contractor as the professional and 'should know better'.

I know in REALITY there will be a compromise on the actual cost to fix it, and everyone will be happy in the end. But in my opinion and morally, This is something the EC should have caught and just STOP working and sent the Change order back. Simply saying , 'To do what you asked me to do would not be code compliant and safe' to the EE . I'm sure they would've just paid him to make it right.

But since he didn't do that in my opinion he should 'eat it' because he signed a contract saying to install all work according to NEC 2008 Code and he did not do that.

 

[LawnGuyLandSparky]

Interesting to see others philosophical look on this. You say he 'didn't install the violation'.

Lets go through some steps here.

1. The contract language specifically says to install all work according to NEC 2008 code and local codes.

And he did. HE didn't INSTALL the 70a breaker.

2. The 'new wire' HE hooked up to a 'branch' circuit that was oversized, is this a violation of NEC 2008 code?? Yes or No? Answer YES, it is a violation.

The branch circuit wasn't oversized, or rather the breaker, he simply extended or reconfigured the existing circuit.

3. The 50 amp receptacle that has a listing that says 'do not install on a branch ciruit above 50 amp' and HE hooked up this receptacle to the branch circuit that was over sized, is this a violation of NEC 2008 code?? Yes or No. Answer YES, it is a violation.

YES, the entire situation is a violation, but only at the point where it was already existing.
He didn't install that.

I'm sorry, just because an EE says to do something doesn't mean it's right as someone here says they learned the hard way, since a court would look at the electrical contractor as the professional and 'should know better'.

And the EE isn't an even higher regarded "professional" and should not only know better, but should have "better" memorized chapter and verse?

I know in REALITY there will be a compromise on the actual cost to fix it, and everyone will be happy in the end. But in my opinion and morally, This is something the EC should have caught and just STOP working and sent the Change order back. Simply saying , 'To do what you asked me to do would not be code compliant and safe' to the EE . I'm sure they would've just paid him to make it right.

But since he didn't do that in my opinion he should 'eat it' because he signed a contract saying to install all work according to NEC 2008 Code and he did not do that.

All the work the EC did IS to code. As far as "morals" go... NOBODY could possibly connect a greater than 50A load to this receptacle, so, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter if this circuit was landed on a 200a breaker.

 

[One-eyed Jack]

All the work the EC did IS to code. As far as "morals" go... NOBODY could possibly connect a greater than 50A load to this receptacle, so, in the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter if this circuit was landed on a 200a breaker.

That is like saying nobody can exceed the speed limit because it is posted on a sign!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Anybody could connect a greater than 50amp to any receptacle. It ain't gonna work for long but it is done every day. 15a to 30a adapter for motor homes for example.

 

[cowboyjwc]

Where I am I would be allowed to move the receptacle without fixing any existing violations. See rule 3


If the inspector felt this was an 'actual hazard' he could employ rule 4.

Here is from our book.

Rule 1: The inspector is always right.

Rule 2: If the inspector is wrong, see rule one.



I would write up the violation, I don't care who pays for it or gets paid for it. My guess is if it's that wrong, someone, did something, without a permit in the first place.