Judge says verbal agreements don’t mean much
When it comes to business a handshake isn’t good enough, a judge ruled this week.
Two separate lawsuits appeared before Santa Monica Small Claims Court Judge Pro Tem Frank R. Smith in which four businessmen couldn’t agree on what they owed each other.
First, Judge Smith tossed out a suit Kenneth B. Oefelein levied against architect Douglas Campbell for work he claims he wasn’t paid for after he completed technical drawings on Campbell’s project.
Then Smith only granted a partial claim to Thomas Todoroff’s $5,000 suit against Neil Lane, a plumber who did remodeling work at a condo on Fourth Street.
Both lawsuits could have been avoided if contracts had been drawn up and both parties had agreed to the terms before any work had begun, Judge Smith said.
“Drawing up a contract certainly protects both parties,” he said. “You’re a damn fool if you don’t have one, but then a lot of people don’t do it.
“In the old days a handshake was good enough, but these days it does-n’t mean the same thing,” he added.
“In the old days a handshake was good enough, but these days it doesn’t mean the same thing.” — — FRANK R. SMITH Judge Pro Tem
Oefelein sued Campbell for $1,600 in back wages after Campbell refused to pay him.
Campbell said he told Oefelein he would pay him $15 an hour and if the work was satisfactory, the pay would go up an additional $20 an hour after three weeks.
But Campbell didn’t pay the bonus and cut Oefelein’s hours in half, saying he wasn’t satisfied with Oefelein’s work.
Campbell counter-sued Oefelein for $2,837 because he claimed Oefelein removed the drawings from his computer files after he refused to pay him. As a result, Campbell had to have the work re-done.
Smith denied both claims because neither party could prove the conditions of their verbal agreement.
“Always get agreements in writing,” he said. “When you have these verbal contracts, it always comes down to a case of ‘he said I said.’ It makes a judge’s work very difficult.”
Todoroff, a developer, sued Lane for $5,000 for faulty plumbing work he did at a Fourth Street property. Lane abandoned the job about three-quarters of the way through, which forced Todoroff to pay another plumber to finish the job.
Lane argued his work was not faulty and had been approved by Santa Monica building inspectors, but he provided no evidence to back up that claim.
Smith awarded Todoroff $3,193.64 for the work another plumber did to repair Lane’s work.
In cases where both parties are working under a verbal contract, Smith said he looks at the billing to find the truth.
“No one does work out of the goodness of their heart,” he said. “The billing will tell you what the other fellow did and how much he was supposed to be compensated for it.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on May 9, 2002. Read the original PDF.