Document EvXZk0Gamaz7N2nbaDepVgxk4

ASSOCIATE DEBRA L. BURMANS PLAINTIFF'S EXHIBIT LAW OFFICES STEPHEN B. HUGHES TEN ELLICOTT STREET BATAVIA. NY 14020-0566 TELEPHONE AREA CODE 71 6 344-10S7 September 22, 1987 Scott Ward Quality Control Manager Bird Incorporated Pleasant Street Norwood, MA 02062 RE: Five Star Roofing and St. Mary's Church vs. Bird Incorporated Dear Mr. Ward: Thank you for your letter dated September 2, 1987 which has been reviewed by our client together with all the earlier supplemental information. This matter has been most distressful. As you know, the situation has not improved at all over the two year period. If anything, the color contrast has become more discernible. Quite frankly, both my client and St. Mary's Church would be wall pleased if the existing roofing were replaced with shingles of the same color as originally ordered. My client would not, however, be interested in any way at all in performing the work. So that you will understand the reasons for my client's reticence to perform any redeanal work on this project, you should understand that it is a very dangerous type of roof upon which to perform work. The pitch 13 9/12 and the lowest edge of the roof is more than 40 feet above ground level. The peek of the roof extends to a heigth of approximately 90 feet. I am sure the pictures in your file will adequately demonstrate the situation. Additionally, when the existing roofing was installed more than two years ago, it did not require the removal of the then existing roof. Mow, with the additional weight, a new roof cannot be installed without removing the existing roofing. This makes for an entirely different job than what was performed by my client on behalf of the church more than two years ago. BIRD 011351 Scott Ward Five Star Hoofing aiu St. Mary's Church vs. Bird Incorporated September 22, 1987 Page 2 My client has discussed the matter from time to time with St. Mary's Church. While the church joins with my client in desiring that the roof be replaced with one of the same color as originally contracted for, there is a recognition that the additional difficulties in removing the existing roofing and reinstalling a new roof as originally 'contracted for presents some practical problems. Both my client- and St. Mary's Church agree that it would not be possible in any way to remove only the contracting colors. As I hope your file will reflect, the contrasting color is in general throughout the entire roof and does not involve only a portion thereof. It has been .suggested that both my client and St. Mary's Church would release Bird Incorporated from any further obligations in' this matter upon payment of the sum of $20,000. Quite frankly,, this sum would not be used to replace or repair in any way whatever the existing roofing. It would be used to offset t&at we believe would be the actual damages sustained by both my client and St. Mary's Church. The roof would be left as is. This suggestion is made, of course, without prejudice to any of the legal claims that may exist. Appreciating the courtesy of your prompt response, I am Very truly yours, HUGHES AND BURHANS SBH/pjm STEPHEN B. HUGHES