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.