11ant
2022-02-21 01:23:20
- #1
Changeability was only agreed orally, but is not stated in the contract.
I think that in the field of electrical and network work, there is no greater (and later more tearful) misunderstanding than the erroneous equating of empty conduits with protective conduits.
Are such "switches" common, or does one normally install a continuous conduit from the outlet to the patch panel?
The cables are laid continuously. With conduits, one must distinguish according to their intended purpose whether they are protective conduits or true empty conduits: protective conduits correspond to the existing cables around them and follow their routing, possibly continuously; empty conduits for pulling cables later on are sensibly "interrupted" by suitable access points at the trickiest changes of direction. But returning to your original question: I see no objection to changes in nominal diameter at transitions from branches to twigs, or from twigs to trunks, or vice versa; and naturally, these branches are "connected" primarily from the perspective of sealing against the intrusion of screed (or of the topping concrete of the "filigree slab"). Thus, the craftsman has done everything correctly with regard to the required protective conduits – but has broken the oral promise of the suitability of protective conduits as empty conduits. However, not in the sense of a malicious lie, but in terms of confusing or failing to distinguish between empty and protective conduits, entire vocational school classes could more or less be sent to the moon en masse. But the clients are no better in this regard.