I think the OP is more right than wrong, legally.You know what ... your arrogance and attitude are beginning to wear on me. Too bad you aren’t half as smart as you think you are.
Losing Your Right to Recover: The Risks of Firing a Contractor for Deficient Work - Pushor Mitchell LLP
The common law imputes an implied condition into all construction contracts that the owner will not prevent a contractor from accessing the worksite. Where an owner denies a contractor access to the worksite, he or she is repudiating the contract, thereby releasing the contractor from any obligations under the contract which would include completing work and repairing deficiencies.
In other words, by depriving Mr. Jozsa the opportunity to remedy his work, Ms. Sebazco was depriving herself of the right to seek damages for the defective work. Generally, if an owner is dissatisfied with a contractor’s work, the appropriate course of conduct is to document the deficiencies, make a demand for the contractor to address the deficiencies and allow the contractor reasonable and necessary access to make the repairs.
The problem is that quality is a subjective thing. The contract was for a concrete driveway ... he got that. I read that he wanted a broom finish ... got that too. Crack control joints ... they are present. So unless he can point out specific faults, he is going to have a difficult time convincing the judge that he deserves a complete re-do. And ... i bet the contract includes an arbitration clause, which is going to really mess with the situation.I think the OP is more right than wrong, legally.