• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

code vs. maufacturers instructions

There appears to be come confusion regarding the use of alternate materials, design and methods of construction. Reference IBC Section 104.11 and IRC Section R104.11.

Alternate means and methods can be used to allow the use of something that the applicant wishes to do but it cannot be used to require the applicant to do something in addition to what is in the code that he does not wish to do.

To properly apply alternate means and methods the building official should review the proposal and should formally indicate his approval. This is something that is not normally done with regards to manufacturers instructions and even if it were done would require that the same manufacturer’s instructions used during installation be the same as those reviewed by the building official.

It is clear in the case law that the existance of an approved building permit does not excuse the permit holder from the need to comply with the code. Thus the approval by the building official would have to explicitly address the use of the product or material as an alternate means of compliance.

While everything incorporated by reference in the adopted code is adopted this doesn’t mean that what was adopted was legal. If requiring blanket compliance with the manufacturer’s instructions is not legal the fact that it was required in a number of reference standards does not make it legitimate. The contents of reference standards are subject to the same legal constraints that apply to the adopted regulations. There is at least one reference standard that attempts to define when the Owner must pay for some of the Contractor’s errors. I would argue that this is illegal for several reasons.
 
I would be very reluctant to have something installed contrary to the manufacturers instructions. You are effectively voiding any warranty the contractor/consumer may have had through the manufacturer. In my opinion, typically the manufacturers instructions are going to supercede code requirements.
 
Min&Max said:
I would be very reluctant to have something installed contrary to the manufacturers instructions. You are effectively voiding any warranty the contractor/consumer may have had through the manufacturer. In my opinion, typically the manufacturers instructions are going to supercede code requirements.
Warranties are not a building code issue and Owners should discuss their specifics with their attorney.
 
brrudgers point speaks to what I believe is a key point of disagreement. There are limits on what the code can deal with.

I also would be reluctant to go against the manufacturers instructions but if it does not impact life safety or other legitimate code purpose should it not be my choice. Why shoud a manufacturer's instruction aimed at making the installation look good be a code issue?
 
steveray said:
Thanks MT....maybe I got that name wrong...It is not the Pactiv stuff,,, it is made by a tarp company in China somewhere....http://www.icc-es.org/reports/pdf_files/ICC-ES/ESR-2252.pdf

That stuff....easy guard....it has an ES but nohting on sealing or flashing or anything but some fastening.....and then tell them they need to find 1" crown staples and they can't use their old Bostich hammer tacker....
I had a site (can't remember the job anymore, memory getting foggy) - the contractor HAD read the manf instructions and he was VERY happy to show off his new $500 staplers to me. As I recall he had bought two of them, it was a quirky requirement and I can't say that I would have caught it, but since he had laid out the money for them he was darn sure that I was going to notice and note them.
 
mmmarvel said:
I had a site (can't remember the job anymore, memory getting foggy) - the contractor HAD read the manf instructions and he was VERY happy to show off his new $500 staplers to me. As I recall he had bought two of them, it was a quirky requirement and I can't say that I would have caught it, but since he had laid out the money for them he was darn sure that I was going to notice and note them.
IT SEEMS MOST OF THE MANUFACTURERS CALL FOR THIS NOW......sorry... forgot about caps.....or the plastic capped fasteners....answer I hear the most is.."the siding will hold it on"...Jeez! sorry!...What was I thinking for trying to make you follow the instructions?
 
steveray said:
IT SEEMS MOST OF THE MANUFACTURERS CALL FOR THIS NOW......sorry... forgot about caps.....or the plastic capped fasteners....answer I hear the most is.."the siding will hold it on"...Jeez! sorry!...What was I thinking for trying to make you follow the instructions?
Oh I needed to LOL
 
2010 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE

R102.4 Referenced codes and standards.

Exception: Where enforcement of a code provision would violate the conditions of the listing of the equipment or appliance, the conditions of the listing and manufacturer's instructions shall apply.
 
Mark K said:
The formally adopted code has to trump any manufacturer's instructions other wise you would empower the manufacturer to redefine the code requirements. If the issue was litigated the lawyers and judges would have problems with the idea that the manufacturer of a product could preempt government regulations.This suggests that just because something found its way into the building code it could still be illegal.
you don't think that already happens? As long as manufacturers can be the proponent of code changes, it'll always happen. Manufacturer's instructions often times provide additional requirements beyond the Code minimum
 
Top