A contractor asked a straightforward question on r/Contractor: homeowners keep buying their own mini-split equipment online and asking him to show up with tools and charge an hourly rate. What should the warranty policy be?
The top answer, at 132 upvotes, was two words.
No warranty.
Then the thread did something unusual. Homeowners arrived, and they were not apologetic.
- "HVAC is pricing themselves out of business." 72 upvotes.
- A homeowner who was quoted $27,000, did the job himself for $9,000 including buying every tool, and said he would have happily paid $16,000.
- One quoted $50,000 for a heat pump and four mini-splits, told the equipment alone was $25,000, who checked online and found otherwise.
- One who used AI to size a unit, specify the parts and explain local code, and installed it in four hours.
349 comments. The contractors were talking about warranty. The homeowners were talking about price. Those are not the same conversation, and that gap is the actual subject.
The short answer
Pick a position, put it in writing, and be able to explain your total. Any of the three below works. What does not work is declining on instinct while quoting a single unexplained number, because the customer can now price the equipment in seconds and will draw their own conclusion about the difference.
Why this is happening now
Two changes, both recent, and neither reversible.
Equipment pricing became transparent. A homeowner can find the wholesale-ish price of a specific model in under a minute. Twenty years ago your quote was a number; today it is a number they can partially audit. The commenter who said two seconds on Google disproved a $25,000 equipment claim was describing a check that used to be impossible.
The advice gap closed. One commenter described using AI to size a unit, tell him what to buy and explain the local code rules, then installing it in four hours. Whatever you think of that outcome, the knowledge barrier that used to protect the trade is lower than it was.
The result is a customer who arrives already holding a price for one component of your quote, and who has no visibility into the rest. If your quote is a single total, the only variable they can evaluate is the one they already know, so that is the one they judge you on.
Watch out
This is the trap. A customer comparing your total against a retail equipment price is not accusing you of being expensive; they are missing the labour, the permits, the disposal, the commissioning, the return visits and the warranty, because your quote never showed them. An itemised quote defuses this almost entirely, and a single number guarantees it.
Position one: refuse
Entirely legitimate, and it needs a reason you can say out loud.
The genuine reasons:
You cannot warrant equipment you did not select, and a failure means an argument about whose fault it was. You carry the callback either way, because the customer's relationship is with you rather than with a website. Supplied equipment frequently arrives incomplete, mis-sized or unsuitable, and the discovery happens on site with your crew standing idle. And if something goes wrong, you are the professional in the room, which has liability implications regardless of who bought the box.
How to decline well:
I only install equipment I supply, because I warrant the whole job and I can't do that on parts I didn't source. If it's the equipment cost that's the issue, let me break the quote down so you can see what's what.
That second sentence is the difference between keeping the conversation and ending it. Declining and then refusing to discuss the number is what produces the resentment on display in that thread.
Write it into your intake. One contractor described having "we provide materials" on his lead form specifically so the conversation happens before anyone drives anywhere.
Position two: accept, with written terms
The middle position, and the one a homeowner in the thread described as working well: the contractor was reasonably priced, warned him there was no warranty, and left the decision to him. That homeowner was satisfied. Nobody lost.
If you take this route, the terms have to be specific rather than a blanket "no warranty," because that phrase is ambiguous and ambiguity is what gets litigated.
What to put in writing:
| Term | Position |
|---|---|
| Workmanship | Warranted by you, normally |
| Equipment | Customer's, via their supplier |
| Diagnosis of equipment faults | Chargeable, at your rate |
| Wrong, missing or damaged parts | Customer's cost, including any return visit |
| Delayed delivery | Job rescheduled, callout may apply |
| Commissioning | Included, and defines what you are certifying |
That table matters more than the price. The dispute, when it comes, is never about the invoice; it is about whose problem the failed compressor is eight weeks later.
On charging a higher labour rate, one commenter asked the sharp question directly: why charge more per hour just because you did not supply the parts, if you are already giving no warranty?
It is a fair challenge and it has a real answer, provided the answer is honest. Charge more when the work is genuinely more: unfamiliar equipment, no supplier to lean on for a missing component, higher likelihood of a return visit, time spent verifying that what arrived is what was needed. Do not charge more purely to recover a lost material margin, because customers detect that and it confirms the suspicion that started the conversation.
Position three: productise it
The most interesting response in the thread came from someone reframing the whole problem: rather than resenting it, spec a fixed no-warranty service and market it as helping people cross the finish line on a DIY install.
That is a real gap. The homeowner who bought his own equipment still needs someone competent to make the connections, pressure-test, pull a vacuum, commission the system and confirm it is safe. Many of them know they cannot do that part. Currently they either attempt it anyway or ring around contractors who decline.
What productising it looks like:
A named service with a fixed price. A defined scope, listing exactly what is included and excluded. Written terms per the table above. A minimum charge. An explicit statement that you will not proceed if the installation as found is unsafe or non-compliant, and that a site visit which cannot proceed is still chargeable.
Why it works commercially: the margin is honest, the scope is contained, the customer has already spent money and is motivated to finish, and you have removed the pricing argument entirely because there is no equipment in your number to compare against.
Why most contractors will not do it: it feels like endorsing the behaviour. That is a business judgement, and it is worth making deliberately rather than by reflex, because the work exists whether or not you take it.
Whichever position you pick, it belongs on your website rather than being explained on the phone every time. Our free check looks at what your site tells a prospect before they ring, whether they can enquire without phoning, and where that enquiry goes. Ten checks, about fifteen seconds.
The materials markup, defended properly
Since the objection underneath all of this is that markups are inflated, it is worth being able to answer it precisely.
Sourcing is work. Selecting the right item, ordering, collecting, storing, checking it on arrival, and handling returns. A newly licensed contractor who worried his 30% material markup might be unfair was covering costs, not profiteering. Lumber yards commonly charge 25% restocking on a return without having to drive anywhere.
It funds the warranty. A contractor who supplied the part can replace it without a debate. That certainty is a service, and it is the specific thing the customer forfeits by buying their own.
It carries risk. If the wrong item arrives, that is your problem to solve at your cost. If the customer supplied it, it is theirs, which is precisely why the labour-only version can be cheaper for them and is not automatically worse for you.
What is not defensible is a markup you decline to explain. The homeowner who said two seconds on Google disproved a $25,000 equipment claim was not objecting to markup; he was objecting to being told something checkable and false.
What the other side of the thread looks like
Worth reading the mirror-image discussion, because it complicates the easy answer.
A homeowner posted about a $20,000 porch conversion where the contractor insisted on buying all materials. Asked what he would buy, the contractor said "don't worry about it." Asked about doors, windows and paint specifically, he said they were all about the same and he would deal with it. 102 upvotes, 268 comments.
The responses split three ways: a majority saying do not hire him, a group saying the position is reasonable but he must communicate, and a significant minority saying customer involvement in purchasing is genuinely painful and the contractor is right.
That third group is worth taking seriously. Customer-selected finishes generate indecision, delays, wrong deliveries and scope arguments, and contractors who have been burned by it are not being unreasonable.
But the winning position in that thread was the middle one. The policy was fine; the delivery was not. "I supply materials, here are the three options I'd recommend at your budget" is the same policy with none of the friction, and it is the version that keeps a $20,000 job.
The pricing signal underneath
Worth taking seriously rather than dismissing, because the homeowners in that thread were making a specific and checkable claim.
One reported being quoted $27,000, doing the work himself for $9,000 including buying every tool he needed, and saying plainly that he would have paid $16,000 without argument. Another reported a $50,000 quote for a heat pump and four mini-splits with a claimed $25,000 in equipment, which he checked and disputed.
Some of that is people underestimating what they did not have to do: permits, warranty exposure, insurance, the return visit when something is wrong, and the years of experience that made four hours possible. Homeowners comparing their own labour at zero against a business rate are not comparing like with like.
But the reaction is information regardless of whether it is fair. The gap between what customers expect and what they are quoted is the thing generating this behaviour, and the contractors seeing the most labour-only enquiries are the ones whose local market has the widest gap.
Two responses are available and only one of them is passive.
Check your own numbers. Not against a competitor, against your actual cost. A market where multiple homeowners independently conclude that quotes are inflated is worth a serious look at your own margin structure, using the method in how to price a job as a contractor. You may find your pricing is correct and your presentation is not, which is the more common outcome.
Or accept the segment exists and price for it. A homeowner who will spend $9,000 doing it himself is not your customer at $27,000, and no amount of explanation converts him. He might be a customer for a $1,200 commissioning service, which is revenue you currently decline.
Neither response requires agreeing with the criticism. Both require having looked.
Choosing your position
Four questions that settle it.
Can you explain your total, itemised, without discomfort? If not, fix that first regardless of which position you take. It is the root of the objection.
Would you rather have the labour-only revenue or not have it? There is no wrong answer, and pretending the work does not exist is not one of the options.
Can you enforce written terms? If your paperwork is a verbal agreement and a handshake, do not accept supplied materials, because the dispute will happen without a document to resolve it.
Is your market moving? If a growing share of your enquiries are labour-only, that is a signal about pricing transparency in your area rather than about your customers. Refusing is still allowed; being surprised by it will not be.
The warranty conversation, precisely
"No warranty" was the top answer in that thread with 132 upvotes, and as a policy it is too blunt to survive contact with an actual dispute. Splitting it into three parts is what makes it enforceable.
Your workmanship. This should still be warranted, and saying so is the difference between a professional arrangement and a disclaimer. You are responsible for the quality of the connections, the installation and the commissioning, regardless of who bought the equipment. Withdrawing this alongside the equipment warranty is what makes customers feel the policy is punitive rather than practical.
Their equipment. Between the customer and whoever sold it. State plainly that you cannot process a warranty claim on their behalf and that manufacturer warranties frequently require installation by an authorised installer, which their purchase may already have voided. Many customers do not know this and it is the most useful thing you will tell them.
Diagnosis of equipment faults. Chargeable, at your normal rate. This is the one people forget and it is where the resentment builds: eight weeks later the unit fails, they call you because you are who they know, and without a stated position you are either working free or having an argument.
One commenter raised the sharp version of the objection: if you are already giving no warranty, why charge a higher hourly rate as well? The honest answer is that the two cover different things. The warranty position covers the equipment risk. A higher rate, where justified, covers genuinely more work: unfamiliar kit, no supplier to lean on for a missing part, and a higher chance of a return visit. Charging both without being able to distinguish them is what makes customers suspect the policy is really about the lost material margin.
What to do this week
- Write your policy in one sentence and put it on your website and your intake form.
- Itemise your next three quotes, separating equipment, labour, permits, disposal, commissioning and warranty.
- Draft the written terms from the table above, even if your policy is to refuse, because someone will ask and having the document makes the answer credible.
- Price a commissioning service, whether or not you sell it. Knowing what it is worth tells you what you are turning away.
- Ask the next labour-only enquiry what they were quoted elsewhere. The answers are the cheapest market research available.
That last point closes the loop. The $27,000 quote that turned into a $9,000 DIY job, and the homeowner who said he would have paid $16,000 without hesitation, is a pricing signal rather than a customer problem. The contractor who finds that out early can decide what to do with it. The one who never asks concludes the market changed for reasons nobody explained.
If quotes at your current numbers are going quiet rather than being argued with, that is a different failure and it is covered in why customers ghost after a quote. And if you suspect the underlying issue is that your prices genuinely are out of step, the arithmetic for checking is in how to price a job as a contractor.