Comparing Techniques for Poured Concrete Stabilization

Comparing Techniques for Poured Concrete Stabilization

Types of Crack Gauges and Their Specific Applications in Monitoring Foundation Cracks

Foundation cracks are a common issue that many homeowners face, often leading to concerns about the structural integrity of their homes. Understanding the common causes of these cracks and the role of stabilization techniques is crucial in addressing these problems effectively.




Comparing Techniques for Poured Concrete Stabilization - construction

  1. home inspection
  2. email
  3. music hall

One of the primary causes of foundation cracks is soil movement beneath the structure. This movement can result from several factors, including changes in moisture levels, poor drainage, or expansive clay soils. When soil absorbs water, it expands, and when it dries out, it contracts. This constant expansion and contraction can create pressure on the foundation, leading to cracks over time.


Another significant cause is improper construction practices. Foundations need to be designed and built considering local soil conditions and climate. Sealing cracks prevents further water infiltration Structural Technician Nashville carbon. If this isn't done carefully, even minor shifts in the ground can lead to cracking. Additionally, natural events such as earthquakes or significant tree root growth nearby can exert forces on foundations that they weren't designed to withstand.


Once foundation cracks have been identified, stabilization becomes essential to prevent further damage and maintain structural integrity. Various techniques exist for stabilizing poured concrete foundations, each with its own advantages depending on specific circumstances.


One widely used technique is underpinning. This involves extending the foundation depth or breadth so that it rests on more stable soil or distributes weight more effectively. Methods like traditional mass concrete underpinning or newer techniques using steel piers provide options based on budget and severity of damage.


Another approach is slab jacking (also known as mudjacking), which involves injecting a grout mixture beneath a sunken concrete slab to lift it back into place. This method is effective for smaller repairs where settlement has occurred but hasn't resulted in severe structural issues.


For lateral stability issues-where horizontal movements are causing wall bowing-carbon fiber reinforcement can offer a modern solution. Carbon fiber strips are bonded onto walls using epoxy resin; once cured, they provide tensile strength that prevents further bowing without requiring extensive excavation.


In some cases, particularly where water infiltration has contributed significantly to soil instability around a foundation, improving drainage systems may also play an integral role in stabilization efforts. Installing French drains or ensuring proper grading away from structures helps manage water flow effectively.


Ultimately, choosing an appropriate stabilization technique depends on accurately diagnosing what caused the cracks initially combined with assessing current site conditions thoroughly before deciding upon any remedial action plan tailored specifically towards long-term resilience rather than short-term fixes alone - emphasizing proactive maintenance alongside reactive interventions whenever possible within budget constraints set by property owners themselves who want peace-of-mind knowing their investment remains secure well into future years ahead regardless external environmental pressures faced along way throughout lifespan building itself too!

When it comes to constructing durable and resilient structures, the stabilization of poured concrete plays a crucial role. Over the decades, engineering advancements have introduced a range of techniques for concrete stabilization, each with its own set of advantages and challenges. This essay delves into an overview of traditional versus modern stabilization methods, highlighting their distinctive features and effectiveness.


Traditional methods for stabilizing poured concrete have been in practice for centuries, rooted deeply in tried-and-true processes. Among these, the use of reinforcing steel bars or rebar is perhaps the most prevalent. Rebar provides tensile strength to concrete structures, counterbalancing its natural weakness under tension. This method remains widely used due to its reliability and cost-effectiveness. Another conventional technique involves using wire mesh within the concrete matrix to distribute load evenly across the structure.


Additionally, traditional stabilization often involves careful curing techniques aimed at optimizing moisture retention as the concrete sets. Proper curing ensures that hydration continues over time, enhancing strength development and minimizing shrinkage cracks. Techniques such as water spraying or covering with wet burlaps are commonly employed to maintain appropriate moisture levels during this critical phase.


In contrast, modern methods leverage technological advancements to enhance the performance and longevity of concrete structures even further. One significant innovation in this arena is the use of fiber reinforcement. Fibers-whether synthetic like polypropylene or natural like basalt-are mixed directly into the concrete before pouring. These fibers provide multidirectional support throughout the material, improving resistance against cracking and increasing overall durability.


Another contemporary approach is chemical admixtures that modify specific properties of fresh or hardened concrete. For instance, superplasticizers increase fluidity without affecting water content, allowing better placement around complex forms while maintaining strength characteristics.

Comparing Techniques for Poured Concrete Stabilization - construction

  1. construction
  2. water
  3. wall
Retarders slow down setting times in hot climates where rapid evaporation could compromise structural integrity.


Moreover, modern stabilization has embraced nanotechnology's potential impact on construction materials; nanoparticles such as silica fume can enhance mechanical properties significantly when added at small concentrations during mixing stages.


While both traditional and modern methods offer viable solutions for stabilizing poured concrete constructions effectively-each having their unique merits-the choice between them depends largely upon project requirements like budget constraints alongside environmental considerations (e.g., climate conditions). In many cases today's best practices involve combining elements from both categories: integrating new technology within established frameworks provides optimum results by balancing proven efficacy with innovative enhancements tailored specifically towards meeting individual site demands efficiently over time.


In conclusion: although longstanding traditions continue influencing contemporary building practices worldwide when dealing specifically with ensuring stable foundations through properly stabilized pours; ongoing research into cutting-edge alternatives promises continued improvements making tomorrow's infrastructures safer than ever before possible thanks largely due diligence applied consistently across every stage involved designing executing successful projects alike!

United Structural Systems in Social Media

United Structural Systems of Illinois on Yelp

How to reach us:


Assessing Regional Climate Patterns for Crack Risks

Assessing Regional Climate Patterns for Crack Risks

Assessing regional climate patterns to understand crack risks in structures is crucial in an era where climate change poses significant challenges to infrastructure durability.. As global temperatures rise and weather patterns become increasingly unpredictable, the need for robust policies and recommendations for managing climate impact on structures becomes paramount.

Posted by on 2024-12-31

The Science Behind Expansive Soils and Foundation Damage

The Science Behind Expansive Soils and Foundation Damage

Expansive soils, with their unique ability to undergo significant volume changes in response to moisture variations, present a formidable challenge to the integrity of structural foundations.. These soils, found in many regions across the globe, can swell when wet and shrink upon drying, leading to considerable movement that often translates into foundation damage.

Posted by on 2024-12-31

Step-by-Step Guide to Installing Crack Gauges on Foundation Cracks

When it comes to poured concrete stabilization, choosing the right technique can make a significant difference in the longevity and durability of structures. Three popular methods are epoxy injections, polyurethane foam, and carbon fiber reinforcement. Each has its distinct advantages, applications, and limitations, making them suitable for different scenarios depending on the specific needs of a project.


Epoxy injections have long been favored for their ability to repair cracks in concrete structures with high precision. This method involves injecting an epoxy resin into cracks under pressure, which then solidifies to form a strong bond that restores structural integrity. One of the main advantages of epoxy injections is their ability to penetrate deep into fine cracks, effectively sealing them and preventing further moisture intrusion that could lead to deterioration. However, the process requires thorough surface preparation and skilled application to ensure that all voids are filled completely. Epoxy is also best suited for dry conditions since moisture can interfere with its bonding capabilities.


In contrast, polyurethane foam presents a more versatile option due to its expansive properties. Polyurethane foam injection works well not only for crack repair but also for void filling and soil stabilization around concrete structures. When injected, this foam expands significantly upon contact with moisture, allowing it to fill larger gaps or cavities efficiently-making it ideal for environments where water presence is unavoidable. Its flexibility allows it to accommodate slight movements within the structure without compromising the seal's integrity. However, unlike epoxy resins which add strength by bonding tightly with concrete surfaces, polyurethane does not contribute additional structural strength; thus it may not be suitable for critical load-bearing repairs.


Carbon fiber reinforcement takes a different approach by providing external support rather than filling internal voids or cracks. This technique involves applying carbon fiber sheets or strips onto the surface of weakened concrete areas using specialized adhesives. Once cured, these composites offer exceptionally high tensile strength while being lightweight and resistant to corrosion-a combination that makes them particularly effective in reinforcing beams and columns subjected to bending stresses or potential seismic activity. The non-intrusive nature of carbon fiber reinforcement means minimal disruption during installation; however, because it works externally rather than internally like injections do-it primarily serves as supplementary reinforcement rather than direct crack repair.


In conclusion, selecting between epoxy injections, polyurethane foam injections or carbon fiber reinforcement largely depends on specific circumstances such as environmental conditions (dry vs wet), types of damage (cracks vs large voids), required level of structural strengthening-and overall project goals including budget constraints/timeframes involved etcetera Ultimately though-all three techniques offer viable solutions when applied correctly within appropriate contexts: ensuring enhanced safety performance resilience longevity stabilized poured concrete structures whether repairing existing damages preventing future ones altogether!

Step-by-Step Guide to Installing Crack Gauges on Foundation Cracks

Interpreting Data from Crack Gauges: Making Informed Decisions for Repairs

In the realm of construction and civil engineering, poured concrete stabilization is a critical consideration in ensuring the durability and safety of structures. Various techniques exist for stabilizing poured concrete, each with its own set of advantages and disadvantages that make them more or less suitable depending on the scenario at hand. Understanding these nuances is essential for professionals tasked with selecting the most appropriate method for their projects.


One prevalent technique is the use of steel reinforcements, commonly known as rebar. This method significantly enhances the tensile strength of concrete, making it ideal for structures that must withstand heavy loads, such as bridges and skyscrapers. The primary advantage of using rebar is its proven track record in improving structural integrity and longevity. However, a notable disadvantage is the susceptibility to corrosion over time, particularly in environments with high moisture or salt exposure. This can lead to increased maintenance costs and potential structural failures if not adequately managed.


Another approach is fiber reinforcement, which involves adding fibers made from materials like steel, glass, or synthetic substances into the concrete mix. The key advantage here lies in its ability to distribute stress throughout the concrete matrix more evenly than traditional reinforcement methods. This can reduce cracking and improve overall durability without substantially increasing weight or bulk. On the downside, fiber reinforcement can be costlier upfront and may require specialized mixing equipment or techniques to ensure proper distribution within the concrete mixture.


Chemical admixtures offer yet another route for stabilization by altering the properties of wet concrete before it sets. These chemicals can enhance workability, accelerate curing times, or improve resistance to environmental factors such as freeze-thaw cycles and chemical erosion. Admixtures are versatile and can be tailored to meet specific project needs; however, their effectiveness heavily relies on precise formulation and application processes. Incorrect usage can lead to compromised structural performance or increased costs due to wasted materials.


Lastly, post-tensioning involves installing tendons within concrete elements after they have been cast but before they have fully cured. By applying tension to these tendons once the concrete has hardened sufficiently, this technique imparts additional compressive forces that counteract tensile stresses during service life. Post-tensioning offers significant load-bearing enhancements while allowing for thinner slabs compared to conventional reinforcement methods-ideal for applications where reduced weight is advantageous. The complexity involved in installation and potential need for specialized labor represent considerable disadvantages that must be weighed against these benefits.


Ultimately, choosing a stabilization technique depends on various factors including project scale, environmental conditions, budget constraints, and desired longevity outcomes. Each method presents unique trade-offs between performance benefits versus practical limitations; thus requiring careful consideration from design through execution stages in any construction endeavor involving poured concrete stabilization processes.

Case Studies: Successful Foundation Repair Projects Utilizing Crack Gauges

When it comes to addressing foundation crack repairs, particularly in poured concrete, selecting the appropriate stabilization method is crucial for ensuring long-term structural integrity and safety. The choice of technique depends on several factors that must be carefully considered to achieve effective results. This essay explores key considerations when comparing techniques for stabilizing cracks in poured concrete foundations.


First and foremost, the extent and nature of the damage play a pivotal role in determining the suitable stabilization method. Not all cracks are created equal; some may be mere hairline fractures caused by natural settling, while others might indicate severe structural issues such as soil movement or water infiltration. A thorough assessment by a qualified professional is essential to discern the severity of the cracks and identify their root causes.


The type of soil underlying the foundation also significantly influences the choice of repair technique. Expansive clay soils, for instance, are prone to swelling and shrinking with moisture changes, potentially exacerbating foundation cracks over time. In such cases, methods like underpinning or soil stabilization might be necessary to address both the immediate damage and prevent future occurrences.


Another factor to consider is the environmental conditions surrounding the property. Areas with high water tables or frequent freeze-thaw cycles can impose additional stress on concrete foundations. Techniques such as installing proper drainage systems or using waterproofing membranes can complement crack repair efforts by mitigating external pressures that contribute to further deterioration.


Cost considerations cannot be overlooked when selecting a stabilization method. Different techniques carry varying price tags depending on their complexity and materials required. Epoxy injections may offer a cost-effective solution for minor cracks, whereas more extensive procedures like wall anchors or helical piers might demand higher investment but provide comprehensive reinforcement for significant structural issues.


Finally, long-term performance should guide decision-making when choosing among various stabilization methods. Some techniques offer temporary fixes that may require repeated interventions over time, while others provide durable solutions designed to withstand environmental challenges and structural loads effectively.


In conclusion, selecting an appropriate stabilization method for foundation crack repairs in poured concrete involves evaluating multiple factors: damage severity, soil type, environmental conditions, cost implications, and long-term performance expectations. By considering these elements carefully with expert guidance from construction professionals who specialize in foundations' stability solutions ensures not only addressing current concerns but also safeguarding against potential future problems-ultimately preserving both property value and occupant safety alike through sound engineering practices tailored specifically towards each unique situation encountered within this complex domain of civil infrastructure maintenance tasks undertaken routinely across many residential developments nationwide today!

Limitations and Considerations When Using Crack Gauges for Foundation Issues

In the realm of construction and civil engineering, concrete stabilization stands as a crucial aspect that ensures the longevity and safety of structures. Various techniques have evolved over the years to enhance the stability of poured concrete, each with its unique merits and applications. This essay delves into case studies that highlight successful applications of these techniques, offering insights into their comparative effectiveness.


One prominent technique in concrete stabilization is the use of chemical admixtures. These are added to the concrete mix to improve its properties such as workability, setting time, and durability. A noteworthy case study involves the construction of a high-rise building in an earthquake-prone zone in California. Engineers opted for superplasticizers, a type of chemical admixture, to increase the flowability of concrete without adding extra water. This adjustment not only facilitated easier pouring but also enhanced the structural integrity by reducing potential cracks caused by shrinkage.


Another technique is fiber reinforcement, which involves incorporating fibrous materials into the concrete mix to improve its tensile strength and crack resistance. A significant application can be seen in highway pavement projects across Europe where fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) was used extensively. One particular project in Germany demonstrated how FRC significantly reduced maintenance costs and prolonged pavement life by effectively minimizing cracking under heavy traffic loads.


Geopolymer concrete presents a more sustainable alternative to traditional Portland cement-based mixes. In Australia, a case study on bridge construction showcased its benefits-reduced carbon footprint and superior thermal resistance-while maintaining comparable mechanical properties to conventional methods. This innovative approach not only aligns with environmental targets but also proves economically viable over time due to lower lifecycle costs.


The post-tensioning method is another stabilizing technique often employed in large-scale projects like bridges and parking garages. It involves installing steel tendons within or alongside poured concrete slabs that are later tensioned after curing. A renowned example includes the construction of an expansive parking structure at an international airport in Asia where post-tensioning allowed for thinner slabs without compromising strength or stability, thereby optimizing material use and reducing overall weight on supporting columns.


Finally, soil stabilization plays a pivotal role when it comes to supporting structures built on less-than-ideal substrates. Techniques such as lime or cement treatment have been successfully applied to stabilize underlying soils before pouring foundations or roadbeds. In an ambitious infrastructure project in Africa involving extensive rail network expansion through challenging terrains, soil stabilization using lime proved effective in providing necessary support while preventing differential settlement issues post-construction.


These case studies collectively underscore that selecting an appropriate stabilization technique is contingent upon specific project requirements including environmental conditions, load-bearing needs, cost implications, and sustainability goals. By comparing these techniques through real-world applications, engineers can make informed decisions aimed at optimizing both performance outcomes and resource efficiency in diverse construction scenarios worldwide.

In law, a warranty is an expressed or implied promise or assurance of some kind. The term's meaning varies across legal subjects.[1] In property law, it refers to a covenant by the grantor of a deed.[2] In insurance law, it refers to a promise by the purchaser of an insurance about the thing or person to be insured.[3]

In contract law, a warranty is a contractual assurance given, typically, by a seller to a buyer,[4] for example confirming that the seller is the owner of the property being sold.[5] A warranty is a term of a contract, but not usually a condition of the contract or an innominate term, meaning that it is a term "not going to the root of the contract",[6] and therefore only entitles the innocent party to damages if it is breached,[6] i.e. if the warranty is not true or the defaulting party does not perform the contract in accordance with the terms of the warranty. A warranty is not a guarantee: it is a mere promise. It may be enforced if it is breached by an award for the legal remedy of damages.

Depending on the terms of the contract, a product warranty may cover a product such that a manufacturer provides a warranty to a consumer with whom the manufacturer has no direct contractual relationship because it is purchased via an intermediary.

A warranty may be express or implied. An express warranty is expressly stated (typically, written); whether or not a term will be implied into a contract depends on the particular contract law of the country in question. Warranties may also state that a particular fact is true at a point in time, or that the fact will continue into the future (a "continuing warranty").

Express warranty

[edit]

Express warranties are created when the seller makes a guarantee to the buyer that the product or service being offered has certain qualities. For there to exist an express warranty, a statement regarding the product or service must be made to the buyer and the statement must play a role in the buyer's decision to purchase the product or service. If, after purchase, the buyer feels that the given statement was a misrepresentation of the actual product or service, the buyer can file for breach of express warranty.[7]

Implied warranty

[edit]

Implied warranties are unwritten promises that arise from the nature of the transaction, and the inherent understanding by the buyer, rather than from the express representations of the seller.

Sale of goods

[edit]

Warranties provided in the sale of goods (tangible products) vary according to jurisdiction, but commonly new goods are sold with implied warranty that the goods are as advertised. Used products, however, may be sold "as is" with no warranties. Each country, however, defines its own parameters with regard to implied conditions or implied warranties. The rules regarding warranties are largely standardised; i.e., the concepts of offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity to contract and intention to create legal relations. Those are the five elements to create a legally binding contract in the United States (all 50 states), England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, each of the seven states of Australia, and all other common law countries. Countries with civil law systems, however, recognise legally binding contracts which are not supported by consideration.[citation needed]

United States

[edit]

In the United States, various laws apply, including provisions in the Uniform Commercial Code which provide for implied warranties.[8] However, these implied warranties were often limited by disclaimers. In 1975 the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act was passed to strengthen warranties on consumer goods.[9] Among other things, under the law implied warranties cannot be disclaimed if an express warranty is offered, and attorney fees may be recovered.[9] In some states, statutory warranties are required on new home construction, and "lemon laws" apply to motor vehicles.

Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code, which has been adopted with variations in each state, provides that the following two warranties are implied unless they are explicitly disclaimed (such as an "as is" statement):

  • The warranty of merchantability is implied unless expressly disclaimed by name, or the sale is identified with the phrase "as is" or "with all faults." To be "merchantable", the goods must reasonably conform to an ordinary buyer's expectations. For example, a fruit that looks and smells good but has hidden defects may violate the warranty if its quality does not meet the standards for such fruit "as passes ordinarily in the trade". In most states, products inherently come with implied warranty of merchantability; however, in states like Massachusetts under consumer protection law, it is illegal to disclaim this warranty on household goods sold to consumers. (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 106: Section 2-316A)
  • The warranty of fitness for a particular purpose is implied unless disclaimed when a buyer relies upon the seller to select the goods to fit a specific request. For example, this warranty is violated when a buyer asks a mechanic to provide tires for use on snowy roads and receives tires that are unsafe to use in snow.

Defects In Materials and Workmanship

[edit]

A common kind of warranty on goods is a warranty that the product is free from material defects in materials and workmanship. This simply promises that the manufacturer properly constructed the product, out of proper materials. This implies that the product is not defective for the purposes for which it was made.

Warranties may be time limited, thus limiting the time the buyer has to make a claim for breach of warranty. For example, a typical 90-day warranty on a television gives the buyer 90 days from the date of purchase to claim that the television was improperly constructed. Should the television fail after 91 days of normal usage, which because televisions customarily last longer than 91 days means there was a defect in the materials or workmanship of the television, the buyer nonetheless may not collect on the warranty because it is too late to file a claim. Consumer protection laws implemented by statute, however, provide additional remedies as it is not usually expected that a television will last for only 90 days.

Time-limited warranties are often confused with performance warranties. A 90-day performance warranty would promise that the television would work for 90 days, which is fundamentally different from promising that it was delivered free of defects and limiting the time the buyer has to prove otherwise. But because the usual evidence that a product was delivered defective is that it later breaks, the effect is very similar.

One situation in which the effect of a time-limited warranty is different from the effect of a performance warranty is where the time limit exceeds a normal lifetime of the product. If a coat is designed to last two years, but has a 10-year limited warranty against defects in materials and workmanship, a buyer who wears the coat for 3 years and then finds it worn out would not be able to collect on the warranty. But it is different from a 2-year warranty because if the buyer starts wearing the coat 5 years after buying it, and finds it wears out a year later, the buyer would have a warranty claim in Year 6. On the other hand, a 10-year performance warranty would promise that the coat would last 10 years.

Satisfaction guarantee

[edit]

In the United States, the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act of 1976 provides for enforcement of a satisfaction guarantee warranty. In these cases, the advertiser must refund the full purchase price regardless of the reason for dissatisfaction.[10]

Lifetime warranty

[edit]

A lifetime warranty is usually a warranty against defects in materials and workmanship that has no time limit to make a claim, rather than a warranty that the product will perform for the lifetime of the buyer.[11] The actual time that product can be expected to perform is normally determined by the custom for products of its kind used the way the buyer uses it.

If a product has been discontinued and is no longer available, the warranty may last a limited period longer. For example:

  • the Cisco Limited Lifetime Warranty currently lasts for five years after the product has been discontinued, but only if you know where you bought it from as the seller is responsible for administering it.[12]
  • HP Networking product lifetime warranties last for as long as one owns the product.[13]

Limited warranty

[edit]

A warranty may be limited in duration (as above) and/or in scope. In Avrora Fine Arts v Christie, Manson and Woods (a UK High Court case), the auctioneers had issued a "limited warranty" that a certain painting sold at auction had been painted by the Russian painter Boris Kustodiev, which experts subsequently stated was not the case. The sale was cancelled and the buyer was reimbursed, but further claims of negligence and misrepresentation were denied because they fell outside the warranty's scope.[14]

Breach of warranty

[edit]

Warranties are breached when the promise is not performed at all, or not performed in accordance with the contract. The seller may honor the warranty by making a refund or a replacement. The statute of limitations depends on the jurisdiction and contractual agreements. In the United States, the Uniform Commercial Code § 2-725 provides for a four-year time limit, which can be limited to one year by contract, starting from the date of delivery or if future performance is guaranteed from the date of discovery. Refusing to honor the warranty may be an unfair business practice. In the United States, breach of warranty lawsuits may be distinct from revocation of contract suits; in the case of the breach of warranty, the buyer's item is repaired or replaced while breach of contract involves returning the item to the seller.[15]

Warranty label on top of a hard disk
Warranty label on top of a hard disk
Warranty label lifted. The word "VOID" is shown multiple times
Warranty label lifted. The word "VOID" is shown multiple times.

Some warranties require that repairs be undertaken by an authorized service provider. In such cases, service by non-authorized personnel or company may void (nullify) the warranty. However, according to the Magnuson-Moss Act (a U.S. Federal law that governs warranties, which was passed in 1975), if the warranty does not provide full or partial payment of labor (to repair the device or system), it is the owner's choice who will provide the labor, including the possibility of DIY ("Do It Yourself") repairs, in which case the device or system owner will pay zero dollars for labor, yet the company that provided the warranty must still provide all the parts needed for the repair at absolutely no charge to the owner.

If the defective product causes injury, this may be a cause of action for a product liability lawsuit (tort). Strict liability may be applied.

Extended warranty

[edit]

In addition to standard warranties on new items, third parties or manufacturers may sell or offer extended warranties (also called service contracts).[16] These extend the warranty for a further length of time. However, these warranties have terms and conditions which may not match the original terms and conditions. For example, these may not cover anything other than mechanical failure from normal usage. Exclusions may include commercial use, "acts of God", owner abuse, and malicious destruction. They may also exclude parts that normally wear out such as tires and lubrication on a vehicle.

These types of warranties are provided for various products, but automobiles and electronics are common examples. Warranties which are sold through retailers such as Best Buy may include significant commission for the retailer as a result of reverse competition.[17] For instance, an auto warranty from a car dealership may be subcontracted and vehicle repairs may be at a lower rate which could compromise the quality of service. At the time of repair, out-of-pocket expenses may be charged for unexpected services provided outside of the warranty terms or uncovered parts. Extended Warranties are mostly back to back underwritten by underwriters, who are the actual bearer of the risk.

Representations versus warranties

[edit]

Statements of fact in a contract or in obtaining the contract are considered to be either warranties or representations. Traditionally, warranties are factual promises which are enforced through a contract legal action, regardless of materiality, intent, or reliance.[18] Representations are traditionally *pre*contractual statements which allow for a tort-based action if the misrepresentation is innocent, negligent or fraudulent.[19] In U.S. law, the distinction between the two is somewhat unclear;[18] warranties are viewed as primarily contract-based legal action while negligent or fraudulent misrepresentations are tort-based, but there is a confusing mix of case law in the United States.[18] In modern English law, sellers often avoid using the term 'represents' in order to avoid claims under the Misrepresentation Act 1967 (although English law will look to the substance rather than the form of the representation to decide what it is), while in America 'warrants and represents' is relatively common.[20] Some modern commentators suggest avoiding the words and substituting 'state' or 'agree', and some model forms do not use the words;[19] however, others disagree.[21]

Product types

[edit]

Appliance warranty

[edit]

Canada and United States

[edit]

Written warranties on new major appliances, such as refrigerators, kitchen stoves and dishwashers, usually cover the cost of parts and labor to repair defects in materials or workmanship which appear under normal home use.

Warranties often cover defects up to a year after purchase or delivery.[22] However some exclude new owners when a house or appliance is sold within the year (Frigidaire,[23] LG,[24] Samsung[25]). Others do let warranties transfer to new buyers (Amana,[26] General Electric,[27] Whirlpool). Some manufacturers cover refrigerators' sealed parts (compressors, tubing, etc.) for five years (General Electric,[27] Samsung,[28] Whirlpool)[25] or seven years (LG[24]) or ten years (KitchenAid[29]).

Warranties on water heaters cover parts for 5 to 12 years in single family residences, one year otherwise. They do not cover new owners when a house or heater is sold; nor do they cover the original owner if the heater is moved to a second location.[30][31][32][33][34] Tank models from A. O. Smith do not allow heating elements to be replaced with lower (or higher) wattages, and do not cover renter-occupied single family. They end if the unit is flooded or ever uses desalinated or deionized water, such as municipal desalination plants or reverse osmosis filters.[32][33] Smith's tank models for manufactured housing do not provide coverage if a whirlpool or hot tub is connected.[33]

Tank water heater warranties exclude labor, liability for water damage, and shipping cost to return the old heater or parts. Tankless warranties do not exclude water damage; they cover labor for a year, and Ruud/Rheem covers return shipping on tankless models.[31][34] Smith's tankless water heaters do not restrict coverage to a single family, and require professional installation.[34]

Implied warranties under US law could extend for longer periods. However, most states allow the written warranties to include clauses which limit these implied warranties to the same time period as the written warranty.[35]

Car warranty

[edit]

United States

[edit]

New car factory warranties commonly range from one year to five years and in some cases extend even 10 years, with typically a mileage limit as well. Car warranties can be extended by the manufacturer or other companies with a renewal fee.

Used car warranties are usually 3 months and 3,000 miles.

United Kingdom

[edit]

In the United Kingdom, types of warranties have been classified as either an:

  1. original manufacturer warranty,
  2. insurance warranty underwritten and regulated as insurance or
  3. obligor warranty, typically written by a car dealership or garage.

In the United Kingdom, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), which began to regulate insurance contracts in this context in 2005, determined that additional warranties sold by car dealerships are "unlikely to be insurance".[36] Insurance warranties may offer greater protection to the consumer.

Home Warranty

[edit]

A home warranty protects against the costs of home and appliance repair by offering home warranty coverage for houses, townhomes, condominiums, mobile homes, and new construction homes. When a problem occurs with a covered appliance or mechanical system such as an air conditioning unit or furnace, a service technician repairs or replaces it. The homeowner may have to pay for a service call fee and the home warranty company pays the balance for the repair or replacement of the covered item.

Intellectual property right warranty

[edit]

An intellectual property right (IPR) warranty provides contractual protection against breach of rights in software development and other fields where IPR is protected. Increasing reluctance on the part of suppliers to offer an IPR warranty or indemnity has been noted in recent years.[37]

Warranty data

[edit]

Warranty data consists of claims data and supplementary data. Claims data are the data collected during the servicing of claims under warranty and supplementary data are additional data such as production and marketing data.[38] This data can help determine product reliability and plan for future modifications.[38]

See also

[edit]
  • Business law
  • Collateral TORT
  • Consumer protection
  • Due diligence
  • Extended warranty
  • Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act
  • Surety
  • Warranty deed
  • Warranty tolling

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Gilmore, Grant; Black, Jr., Charles L. (1975). The Law of Admiralty. Foundation Press. p. 63. ISBN 0882774093.
  2. ^ Black's Law Dictionary (15 ed.). Thomson Reuters West. 2015. p. 1344. ISBN 9780314642721.
  3. ^ Black's Law Dictionary (15 ed.). Thomson Reuters West. 2015. p. 1345. ISBN 9780314642721.
  4. ^ Gordons Partnership Solicitors, Guarantees, Warranties and Indemnities – Spot the Difference, accessed 2 February 2023
  5. ^ Johnson, M., Warranties in share purchase agreements, Rocket Lawyer, accessed 2 February 2023
  6. ^ a b Hogg M. (2011). Promises and Contract Law: Comparative Perspectives, p. 48, Cambridge University Press.
  7. ^ Bagley, Constance; Dauchy, Craig (2018). The Entrepreneur's Guide to Law and Strategy (Fifth ed.). Boston, MA: Cengage Learning, Inc. pp. 313–315. ISBN 978-1-285-42849-9.
  8. ^ Warranties in Sales of Goods. LexisNexis Study Outlines.
  9. ^ a b 12 Reasons to Love the Magnuson-Moss Act. Journal of Texas Consumer Law. Reprinted with permission from the National Consumer Law Center.
  10. ^ Andreoni J. (2005). Trust, Reciprocity, and Contract Enforcement: Experiments on Satisfaction Guaranteed.
  11. ^ Lifetime Warranties. Warranty Week. WebCite Archive.
  12. ^ "Cisco Limited Lifetime Hardware Warranty Terms". Retrieved 2008-09-10.
  13. ^ "HP Networking warranty information". Retrieved 2011-08-26.
  14. ^ Maitland Chambers, AVRORA FINE ARTS INVESTMENT LTD V CHRISTIE, MANSON & WOODS LTD (2012), accessed 23 December 2022
  15. ^ Davis T. (2009). UCC Breach of Warranty and Contract Claims: Clarifying the Distinction. Baylor Law Review.
  16. ^ "Appliances - 247 Home Rescue". 247 Home Rescue. Retrieved 26 June 2015.
  17. ^ Baker T, Siegelman P. (2013). Protecting Consumers from Add-On Insurance Products: New Lessons for Insurance Regulation.
  18. ^ a b c West G D, Lewis W B. (2009). Contracting to Avoid Extra-Contractual Liability—Can Your Contractual Deal Ever Really Be the "Entire" Deal? The Business Lawyer.
  19. ^ a b Primack MA. (2009), and it was relied upon by a party to enter into the contract. Representations, Warranties and Covenants: Back to the Basics in Contracts, and do not form part of the contract. National Law Review.
  20. ^ Ferara L N, Philips J, Runnicles J. (2007). Some Differences in Law and Practice Between U.K. and U.S. Stock Purchase Agreements Archived 2013-05-14 at the Wayback Machine. Jones Day Publications.
  21. ^ Telman J. (2012). Representations and Warranties. ContractsProf Blog.
  22. ^ Moor, Tom (2016). "Are Extended Warranties on Appliances Worth It?". Angies' List (published 2016-07-22). Retrieved 16 January 2017. Most manufacturers offer warranties for appliances that last from three months to up to one year.
  23. ^ "Frigidaire, All about the Use & Care of your Refrigerator" (PDF). Electrolux. p. 20. Retrieved 11 September 2016.
  24. ^ a b "LG OWNER'S MANUAL FRENCH DOOR REFRIGERATOR". LG. pp. 55–58. Retrieved 11 September 2016.
  25. ^ a b "WHIRLPOOL® REFRIGERATOR WARRANTY" (PDF). Whirlpool. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 December 2016. Retrieved 11 September 2016.
  26. ^ "AMANA® MAJOR APPLIANCE WARRANTY" (PDF). Amana. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 September 2016. Retrieved 11 September 2016.
  27. ^ a b "GE Appliances, Refrigerators, Owner's Manual" (PDF). General Electric. p. 11. Retrieved 11 September 2016.
  28. ^ "Refrigerator Product Info". Samsung. Retrieved 11 September 2016.
  29. ^ "KITCHENAID® REFRIGERATOR WARRANTY" (PDF). KitchenAid. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 December 2016. Retrieved 23 September 2016.
  30. ^ "Certificate of Limited Warranty, Rheem and Ruud Water Heaters". ruud.com/product/ruud-residential-electric-water-heaters-professional-achiever-series-standard-electric/#specs-docs. 2014-09-01. Retrieved 2017-10-13.
  31. ^ a b "Rheem Limited Warranty For the RHEEM®, RUUD®, Richmond®, Paloma®, and Sure Comfort® Residential Tankless Gas Water Heaters". ruud.com/product/ruud-condensing-tankless-professional-ultra-series-96-direct-vent-indoor/#specs-docs. Retrieved 2017-10-13.
  32. ^ a b AO Smith (2017-08-01). "Limited Warranty [nor manufactured housing]" (PDF). hotwater.com/resources/product-literature/warranty-sheets/residential-electric/. Retrieved 2017-10-13.
  33. ^ a b c "AO Smith Water Heaters, Residential Electric Warranty [Manufactured Housing]" (PDF). hotwater.com/resources/product-literature/warranty-sheets/residential-electric/. Retrieved 2017-10-13.
  34. ^ a b c A. O. Smith. "Warranty" (PDF). hotwater.com/resources/product-literature/warranty-sheets/tankless/. Retrieved 2017-10-13.
  35. ^ "What you need to know about warranty laws". Consumer Reports. 2013. Retrieved 11 September 2016.
  36. ^ What is a contract of insurance? Archived 2012-10-06 at the Wayback Machine. Financial Services Authority.
  37. ^ Simon Halberstam LLP, Difference between an IPR indemnity and an IPR warranty, published 2009, accessed 27 December 2022
  38. ^ a b Wu S. (2012). Warranty Data Analysis: A Review. Quality and Reliability Engineering International.
[edit]
  • Federal Trade Commission: Warranty Information (United States)

 

Photo
Photo
Photo
Photo

Things To Do in Cook County


Driving Directions in Cook County


Driving Directions From Goebbert's Farm - South Barrington to United Structural Systems of Illinois, Inc
Driving Directions From Country Inn & Suites by Radisson, Hoffman Estates, IL to United Structural Systems of Illinois, Inc
Driving Directions From Suburban Associates in Ophthalmology to United Structural Systems of Illinois, Inc
Driving Directions From Navy Pier to United Structural Systems of Illinois, Inc
Driving Directions From Navy Pier to United Structural Systems of Illinois, Inc
Driving Directions From Navy Pier to United Structural Systems of Illinois, Inc
Driving Directions From Navy Pier to United Structural Systems of Illinois, Inc
Driving Directions From Navy Pier to United Structural Systems of Illinois, Inc
Driving Directions From Navy Pier to United Structural Systems of Illinois, Inc

Reviews for United Structural Systems of Illinois, Inc


United Structural Systems of Illinois, Inc

Paul Gunderlock

(4)

The staff was helpful, very nice and easy to work with and completed the work timely and cleaned up well. Communications faltered a bit at times and there was an email communications glitch which was no fault of anyone, but no big deal and all ended up fine. We sure feel better to have this done and hope that is the end of our structural issues. It does seem like (after talking to several related companies), that it would be great if some of these related companies had a structural engineer on staff vs using on the job expertise gained over years - which is definitely valuable! But leaves a bit of uncertainty - and probably saves money for both sides may be the trade-off? So far, so good though! Thank you.

United Structural Systems of Illinois, Inc

Chris Abplanalp

(5)

USS did an amazing job on my underpinning on my house, they were also very courteous to the proximity of my property line next to my neighbor. They kept things in order with all the dirt/mud they had to excavate. They were done exactly in the timeframe they indicated, and the contract was very details oriented with drawings of what would be done. Only thing that would have been nice, is they left my concrete a little muddy with boot prints but again, all-in-all a great job

United Structural Systems of Illinois, Inc

Jim de Leon

(5)

It was a pleasure to work with Rick and his crew. From the beginning, Rick listened to my concerns and what I wished to accomplish. Out of the 6 contractors that quoted the project, Rick seemed the MOST willing to accommodate my wishes. His pricing was definitely more than fair as well. I had 10 push piers installed to stabilize and lift an addition of my house. The project commenced at the date that Rick had disclosed initially and it was completed within the same time period expected (based on Rick's original assessment). The crew was well informed, courteous, and hard working. They were not loud (even while equipment was being utilized) and were well spoken. My neighbors were very impressed on how polite they were when they entered / exited my property (saying hello or good morning each day when they crossed paths). You can tell they care about the customer concerns. They ensured that the property would be put back as clean as possible by placing MANY sheets of plywood down prior to excavating. They compacted the dirt back in the holes extremely well to avoid large stock piles of soils. All the while, the main office was calling me to discuss updates and expectations of completion. They provided waivers of lien, certificates of insurance, properly acquired permits, and JULIE locates. From a construction background, I can tell you that I did not see any flaws in the way they operated and this an extremely professional company. The pictures attached show the push piers added to the foundation (pictures 1, 2 & 3), the amount of excavation (picture 4), and the restoration after dirt was placed back in the pits and compacted (pictures 5, 6 & 7). Please notice that they also sealed two large cracks and steel plated these cracks from expanding further (which you can see under my sliding glass door). I, as well as my wife, are extremely happy that we chose United Structural Systems for our contractor. I would happily tell any of my friends and family to use this contractor should the opportunity arise!

United Structural Systems of Illinois, Inc

Sarah McNeily

(5)

USS was excellent. They are honest, straightforward, trustworthy, and conscientious. They thoughtfully removed the flowers and flower bulbs to dig where they needed in the yard, replanted said flowers and spread the extra dirt to fill in an area of the yard. We've had other services from different companies and our yard was really a mess after. They kept the job site meticulously clean. The crew was on time and friendly. I'd recommend them any day! Thanks to Jessie and crew.

United Structural Systems of Illinois, Inc

Dave Kari

(5)

What a fantastic experience! Owner Rick Thomas is a trustworthy professional. Nick and the crew are hard working, knowledgeable and experienced. I interviewed every company in the area, big and small. A homeowner never wants to hear that they have foundation issues. Out of every company, I trusted USS the most, and it paid off in the end. Highly recommend.

View GBP