Window manufacturer, XYZ, claims their windows meets "B-7" (700 Pa) water leakage and has documentation to prove it. CSA standard guideline suggests minimum requirements for general application are only "B-3" (300 Pa). (B-7 is the highest rating that CSA standard tests to.) Standard suggests that allowance be made for other circumstances than the general application where applicable. Designer looks at cost of a B-4 window vs. a B-7 window and decides for this, and other, reasons to go with the B-7 (B-7 is specified.) Construction proceeds. Air leakage test of building at 50 Pa reveals issues with windows. Glaring issue leads GC to comply and have window installer 're-do' window and sub-window interface. Marked improvement in results at 50 Pa. Owner elects to field test windows to see if they meet air and water specs. Certified lab tests windows to spec and reports that they meet 'air' spec, but do not meet 'water' spec. GC claims spec is not 'appropriate' for application per standard, that a reduced value is ok and that spec is 'wrong'.
You ask for B-7, pay for B-7 then are asked to allow B-??? Seems clear that Owner should get what they paid for, no? Is there 'room' for argument when the spec and associated standard is clearly stated? Is there merit or precedent in the argument that the standard allows for a 'reduced' rating somehow?
You ask for B-7, pay for B-7 then are asked to allow B-??? Seems clear that Owner should get what they paid for, no? Is there 'room' for argument when the spec and associated standard is clearly stated? Is there merit or precedent in the argument that the standard allows for a 'reduced' rating somehow?
