Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Gotta love this technique. Make up a phoney controversy based on poor English comprehension, blame lawyers for one's inability to understand something, and then claim that one's misunderstanding means there is an enforcement problem. We've gone from "do I need a hood" to "the building code has no enforcement mechanism" in just a few posts.
(Hint: It's a building code - look elsewhere for implementing laws and enforcement mechanisms.)
Cooking generates a LOT heat and moisture. Today's houses are very tightly sealed from the outside so "what is made inside, stays inside".
While it might be nice to have extra humidity in the dry winter months, in the summer months, it can cause some substantial problems. The heat has to be cooled by your AC ($$$$), and the humidity has to be condensed out by your AC ($$$$$$$$$), and it still might condense on exterior surfaces (IE: when it's a cool morning), which can cause mold issues everywhere, and water running off windows and damaging the frames.
You would be much better off if you add a vent, exhausted to the outside.
Cooking generates a LOT heat and moisture. Today's houses are very tightly sealed from the outside so "what is made inside, stays inside".
While it might be nice to have extra humidity in the dry winter months, in the summer months, it can cause some substantial problems. The heat has to be cooled by your AC ($$$$), and the humidity has to be condensed out by your AC ($$$$$$$$$), and it still might condense on exterior surfaces (IE: when it's a cool morning), which can cause mold issues everywhere, and water running off windows and damaging the frames.
You would be much better off if you add a vent, exhausted to the outside.
Very pragmatic point you bring up, excellent.
If I were interested in buying a home and the owner gave me some song and dance about how code didn't require a vent, I'd think back on Ed_RDNC's post and either look elsewhere or ask for a substantial contingency or adjustment pronto.
So where is it written that lack of compliance with the "shall be" clauses will definitively result in legal penalty? Because without that, the interpretations will always be floating in the wind.
The administrative code. The laws, as they're written, are pretty straightforward. Plans don't follow codes? no building permit. Inspected work doesn't follow codes? No CO.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdocstr
If a house is built in such a way that does not meet the condition stated in "shall be" above, who takes the fall? The builder? The inspector who fails to find the fault? The homeowner who sells the house to someone else without ever having been aware of the shall be?
This actually happens fairly often, as many contractors wouldn't know the building code if it fell on their head, and there are plenty of ways to hide things from a plans inspector and on-site AHJ. It's also fairly common for work to be done without ever getting a permit in the first place, so plan review and inspections just don't happen. That is a violation of a state statue on the level of assault and battery, though it is rarely pursued on a criminal level.
But to your question: Local AHJs are almost never liable for missing something. It would have to be an incident of severe negligence and even then you'd be lucky to win the suit.
Most liability is on the contractor or owner who filed for the permit. Additionally, construction contracts usually require that the work be done conforming to local codes and specify a time period when the contractor can be called back to fix deficient work (in AIA standard contracts, it's 10 years).
When deficient or unpermitted work is discovered in the process of selling a house, it's up to the owner and buyer to work out something they both agree to. Sometimes that involves a discount, sometimes it involves calling the contractor back, and sometimes both parties agree that it doesn't matter.
This actually happens fairly often, as many contractors wouldn't know the building code if it fell on their head, and there are plenty of ways to hide things from a plans inspector and on-site AHJ. It's also fairly common for work to be done without ever getting a permit in the first place, so plan review and inspections just don't happen. That is a violation of a state statue on the level of assault and battery, though it is rarely pursued on a criminal level.
But to your question: Local AHJs are almost never liable for missing something. It would have to be an incident of severe negligence and even then you'd be lucky to win the suit.
Most liability is on the contractor or owner who filed for the permit. Additionally, construction contracts usually require that the work be done conforming to local codes and specify a time period when the contractor can be called back to fix deficient work (in AIA standard contracts, it's 10 years).
When deficient or unpermitted work is discovered in the process of selling a house, it's up to the owner and buyer to work out something they both agree to. Sometimes that involves a discount, sometimes it involves calling the contractor back, and sometimes both parties agree that it doesn't matter.
Thanks for this post. It's insightful, (yet confirms most of my prior suspicions).
"Shall" is a very straight forward word, it means required. There is no interpretation beyond that.
"Shall" does not mean "required". It is an assertion that something WILL happen, and nothing more. It does not imply consequences for a failed assertion.
Another point to remember when remodeling, or buying a house.
Building Codes are defined to be the MINIMUM necessary methods and quality of construction.
Usually for safety reasons. Not as a definition of average methods/quality, Not comfortable, not what is needed to optimize reselling value.
"Shall" does not mean "required". It is an assertion that something WILL happen, and nothing more. It does not imply consequences for a failed assertion.
Almost 15 years of interpreting federal regs, you are 100% incorrect.
Not the most reliable source but do a similar search and you'll find similar answers in various blogs, if you don't believe us on here.
Example, 12 awg shall be used to connect 20 amp circuits
Could also be written as 12 awg wire is required to connect 20 amp circuits
They have the same meaning and requirements
12 awg wire should be used to connect 20 amp circuits is not a requirement (also this is against code, it must be 12 or lower gauge).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
