newly poured footing undermined

Certainly not acceptable practice.

It is the offer of a Contractor who realises he made a major error, and now wants to get away with it, at your expense or reputation, if you are the person who is supposed to Certify the job.

There is no guarantee that the reinforcing is not exposed, in the voids, at present.

There is also no guarantee that "dowelling new concrete under existing footings to fill voids", is going to result in proper and complete bonding between the old concrete and the new concrete.

Especially in the light of the present footing concrete approaching or being below freezing point, which will immediately chill off any new concrete which is dowelled under it..

With cavities or voids in concrete, the hardest ones to fill are from below, when there is no guarantee that the voids are completely filled, thus leaving some voids, and steel reinforcing to rust quickly, water ingress leaks, and not to mention the absence of proper design strength of the footings.

If you want a proper job done, DO NOT ACCEPT, and insist in writing that the faulty works be removed at the Concrete Contractor's expense, and damages be made good, any extra or consequential costs are borne by that Contractor, and the job repeated and done to the original Specification.

Remember: If you offer suggestions as to how any "repair works be done", under Contract Law you can effectively become the "Clerk of Works" on the job, and lose the ability of remedial action, so be very careful how you state it all, preferably in writing.

Advise your state of progress, thank you....

Especially since these are footings, do not compromise! A poor job here will only cause more problems through the rest of the project. Depending on how your contract is written, I would go one step further and refuse payment. This contractor has already shown you his incompetence, don't give him the chance to screw up again. Get another contractor to do the job right. You can try to back-charge the original guy for the removal of his shoddy work, but that's a slim chance. Good Luck!

Assumption that Guest is in the U.S.A.

First do everything in writing.

Second make no concessions to your original deal.

Third bill the incompetent party with a copy of the contract and an itemised costs incurred, notarized. (called a true bill)

Fourth if they don't pay in the allotted time send a notarized notice of dishonor.

If still no remedy is forthcoming.

Fifth file a commercial lien on assets, accounts, etc.

Sixth Contact the state insurance commissioner and attach the performance bond.

You will need to do more research but if not satisfied you will own them lock stock and barrel.

p.s. this will create enmity, and fear. Try to work with them first.

Done right even a judge cannot remove your lien. Only you or a common law jury can.

Lawyers don't like this because once you know how you don't need them to do it.

Just remember to keep the original contract not a copy. A creditor with only a copy has no right to collect.

legal disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer, I did not spend last night in a Holiday Inn. You will need to do research of your own I'm only pointing you in a possible direction.

Brad

Thank you U V, Brad, for your answer.

The Awards Committee have much pleasure in giving you this in recognition.

That method of recompense is true for all Common Law Countries, including the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain etc.

Remember Common Law, (made by God), is higher that Commercial Law, or Statute = Admiralty Law, which was made by Government = Politicians, Lawyers etc.

You must be sure of what you are doing, if you use Common Law, if you make any error, the ground is effectively cut from beneath you.

Kind Regards....

Remember Common Law, (made by God), is higher that Commercial Law, or Statute = Admiralty Law, which was made by Government = Politicians, Lawyers etc.

Here in the USA, God did not, nor does not make "common law." Common Law refers to rules of law derived from cases where the claims are not governed by state or federal statutes, regulations or code. Common Law is the law derived from years of decisions by courts who, hopefully, achieve just outcomes to disputes, by applying common sense. In some instances, these common law rules have been replaced, for example with the Uniform Commercial Code. Where a statute, law or code governs the transaction, the courts will interpret the facts in light of the language and legislative intent of the statutes, law or code.

If Guest has a contract with foundation contractor, the legal remedy would be based in contract. The courts will apply well-established rules of contract interpretation in this case. While technically these rules were derived from the "common law," they have a long and rich history and are well settled - you might even say codified - and generally consistently applied to all contracts.

Under contract law, the failure to perform in a workmanlike manner would be a breach of contract and actionable under the contract. Even if the contract is vague as to what is required (i.e. specific design criteria) the contractor is responsible to perform in a reasonable manner. Clearly, it did not.

If there is no written contract, shame on you. Never engage construction services without a written contract. Without a contract, you will have to use "common law" theories to recover the cost of replacing the defective work. Recovery will be more difficult than under contract law, however. In any event, the courts will probably find in your favor, baring any malfeasance on your part, as the contractor did not perform what was expected. You may even be able to establish that there is a contract, even without one in writing. Also difficult to do.

Note: Yes, I am a lawyer, but this is not legal advice. Consult your own lawyer on how to recover damages.

Under the UCC (Uniform Commercial Code) the contract, even if verbal, is a given in this case. Work was done, payment expected. The Restatement of Contracts is given much weight.

What is in contention is the performance. Courts handle conflict and contention if not handled privately or no resolution found pre judicially. If the court and it's officers decide the contention some one will be charged to pay for it. 1988 Admiralty Jurisdiction Expansion Act merging: Criminal, Civil, Equity, and Probate into Admiralty. Hence the gold fringe on the flag. There is tons of BS to wade through but it is all there.

Also UCC1-103.6 " The Code [UCC] is complimentary to the Common Law, which remains in force, except where displaced by the Code. A statute should be construed in harmony with the Common Law, unless there is a clear legislative intent to abrogate the Common Law."

No I'm not a party to the UCC but every State is, in part or as a whole.

This is not legal advice(disclaimer)

Brad

Hello Guest,

Common Law is NOT a theory, but a well established fact.

Common Law was called exactly that for one reason:

Common Law is the Law which is Common to God and Common to Man.

Common Law was around long before any Governments or Commercial Corporations.

Most Governments are actually bankrupt Corporations, indeed I do not presently know of any Government which is not both a Corporation, and also bankrupt.

So, Common Law it is above all Government and Corporations, Lawyer, Judges and Courts systems, Commercial Codes, Admiralty Law, Police, Army, etc, all of which were made by Statute Law = By Man.

I am NOT a "Lawyer", and would never become one.

Remember all Lawyers are sworn to uphold the Court system, before their duty to the Client - thus in a "conflict of interest" between the two opposing areas, the Lawyer is sworn to favour the Court System rather than his Client.

That is a situation not generally appreciated by most, including most Lawyers,and almost every Client (The one who pays the Lawyer's Account).

So....In a prosecution situation, the Prosecutor, Judge and Client Lawyer get into a secret huddle, and at that point in time, a decision is reached as to which evidence is going to be allowed in the Trial.

There is often the situation: "You allow me this one,and I'll return the favour next time".

After all, each is essentially paid by a Court Structure System, set up to keep all in very good income levels, at the same time controlling the general population.

So, Guest, if you are truly a Lawyer - Called to the Bar, and sworn in...you should know that, and perhaps better not to cloud the facts for others.

Please understand I am not making any personal judgement on your sincerity, nor your beliefs.

"Sincerity of belief is never a substitute for truth" - Sparkstation

Kind Regards....

If it was me, I would demand job be redone properly from the beginning, all costs to be carried by perpetrator of problem....if hes not willing to do it, then get him legally fired from working further. Its simply too dangerous otherwise.....

Thanks to all for your replies. The job is upstate NY, presently not extremely cold. The job has been straw-protected since before cold set in ( that's how long it's taken to get a concrete sub to show), hence the presence of straw around the worksite.

I agree that undermining is the hardest problem to fill correctly, especially with bonding issues. Would anyone consider cutting out the offending areas - which are dispersed around the entire perimeter of footing- and repouring these (with proper rebar attachments) to fix the problem? My suspicion is cold joints in a continuous footing do not give a warm fuzzy. Short of complete ripout, what else might be permissible?

By the way, one of his comments in latest discussion was (no lie) "You're jumping the gun on this, It's Only A Footing".

Get him out of there.....hes dangerous!

Hello again Guest,

Sorry it's been difficult for us, because you seem to be in every Forum Topic, and we have been busy answering you in those other Forum Topic Threads.

It would be helpful to know if you were the:

1. Main Contractor
2. Concrete Contractor (Hang your head in shame)
   
3. Owner - the person who is to pay for the Works
4. Owner's Agent
   
5. Engineer - who is to Certify the Works
   
6. Architect - who is there to Certify the Works
7. Clerk of Works - who is there to Certify the Works
8. Interested Neighbour
9. Interfering Busybody
   
10. Other - Please Specify

The remark "You're jumping the gun on this, It's Only A Footing", shows that the person who said it, has no understanding of what footings or foundations are for.

Whoever said that remark is definitely not to be trusted.

Unfortunate as it may sound, be very careful about giving any Advice in discussion, or the "you became the effective legal Clerk of Works on the job, and we followed your Instructions" legal situation may result.

In any discussion, use a mini-recorder to record the conversation, preferably have an adult witness present at the conversation, who will vouch for a written record of that conversation, put everything in writing immediately after every conversation, and get yourself and your adult witness to sign each written transcript at a Notary Public - keep the recordings as backup (just in case).

In a case like this, under-the-footings photos are perhaps not of much use at present, unless obvious voids are present (You cannot dig out to show the voids, because that is "Interfering with the Works") - take photos, date/time marked, and keep plenty of them to show what has been done, also take photos of what remedial Works are done to completion.

If you are NOT the Concrete Contractor, do not say, advise or permit anything which accepts the existing Work done.

I have been involved in Projects - Some large, some small, and met up with Contractors and others who tried to cut corners after a mistake.

I have been the Main Contractor in other situations.

I have been the Sub-Contractor in other situations.

I have been the Quality Assurance Officer for Manufacturers.

Payment is regarded in Contract Law as Acceptance.

I can certainly understand the situation from the Concrete Contractor's point of view.

But he accepted to supply the Works in accordance with the Specification, Local Authority Regulations, State or National Standards.

It's not a matter for you to feel sorry for the situation the Concrete Contractor has put himself - The problem is his problem, and I see no proper way to "patch it up so it looks OK, after I get paid and leave, I'm going to do the same trick on future jobs, because look at all the money I've saved here - and I got away with it - hurrah - "ding-ding" = ring of his cash register, as he puts your payment into his till".

Now everyone makes mistakes, you will be told, and this is so very true.

It is Christmastide - The Season of Goodwill towards all men.

In every building type construction, footings or foundations, and how they are made, and what you place them on are of vital importance. (Refer: Bible - Matthew 7:24-27).

So, in the end, if you have to make a decision: What are you going to do?

If it were my decision, the lot would come out at the Concrete Contractor's expense, do not pay him at all, because any payment is acceptance of the shoddy Works.

All consequential costs are to be paid by him.

Then, if you are still prepared to use that Concrete Contractor to do the Works properly, allow him to re-start the Works after all demolition/removal etc , take photos, ensure Specification is complied with etc. - But the risk is yours.

Let us know your state of progress, or lack of it.

If you register at CR4, a useful thing to do, you may select to get Email advice of replies to your Posts....

just discovered this nice picture, of a building with poor footings/foundation, but the time allotted to Edit my Post, had elapsed.

It should be worth placing here

Kind Regards - Happy Christmas....

How do you know that the quality of the rest of the concrete is satisfactory? It seems to me that you are only seeing the worst of it that happened to incidentally become apparent. Given you identified this one issue upon the concrete failing, wouldn't it make sense that there are other area, poured at the same time, that are poor quality and have not yet failed (but will in the future)? I guess you could always have them radar the concrete and pull a couple of cores from those areas that appear good, but the cost to figure out what was and wasn't good isn't really worth it.

I have voted this a good answer, it follows exactly what I do when building in such situations, slight overkill......and that is why I have NEVER had anything like this go wrong in the over 21 years that I have lived and worked in my house. No cracks or any problems at all with footings or walls that I have built....and wonderful peace of mind!!! Rebar, rebar and more rebar......

I do a similar thing with my central heating, the central heating unit supplies 10KW more than the professionals calculate is needed, but the house warms up in an exceedingly short time! Just what I wanted.... The radiators are roughly 4 x bigger than each room needs, again a quickly warm room is the result.

I am sure that due to the rapid heating, an expert might ponder that my gas bill is probably 1% higher or so than it would be had everything been calculated to the minimum, but the differences are not enough to notice.

I have more halved the usage of gas per year with more and better insulation and the use of a Pellets stove in the kitchen to give the house a "basic" heat when its cold at a reasonable and CO2 neutral manner.....

All in all I am happy with the results......never calculate to the minimum when building....especially footings.......your answer was really excellent.

to andy in Frankfurt am Main gwermany,

my Helga says danke shcien for your reply and as i reaad the reply to her she did as only a woman would do, she stopped my reading of your post to ask

what is a pellet stove? my reply i have no idea, lets ask andy.

so just what is a pellet stove, what type of logs do you burn in it, a cord of maple and birch at the cost averageing $ 500.00 cdn are the most common in this area, we had ash until a beetle started destroying the trees so the provincial gocvernments environmental protection regulators banned cutting or burning it.

Take a look here, just click on either link:-

http://www.ecoheating.co.nz/pelletfires.html

http://www.aster.it/opet/doc/finland_house.pdf

I hope this has helped you to understand what a pellets oven is for!

40,000 houses are warmed in Germany by burning wood pellets.

Hello barfnagler,

Thank you for your advice above.

I have also rated your reply as a "Good Answer".

And The Awards Committee have much pleasure in presenting you with this fine auto-Poster to assist you with further good answers

Be encouraged in helping others.

Kind Regards from far away.....

I am not sure that a specific manufacturers brand name ofpremolded forms is necessary for typical shallow residential footings. Forms are easily constructed for these types of residential applications. Plus the forms do not actually add anything structurally or materially to the facility (i guess you could just leave them in place, but as the concrete shrinks it will separate from the form a little and allow water to eventually build up).

You have a few issues here to address. You do not want to undermine a footing just to cover the voids with concrete, since the underlying soil forms part of the bearing foundation for the structure, and you are unlikely to achieve adequate consistent compaction in the areas under the footing. You also need to protect the reinforcement from exposure and provide adequate compressive strength to stiffen the footing. The best bet is to remove the identified damaged areas drill and dowel the good existing footing and re-pour a new footing. You really want a expert, in case you need the testimony, to identify the areas of concern that need removal, and observe replacement.

Another alternative that you might consider pressure grouting the areas as one possibility with a 3/8" pea gravel mix. This is typically where you want to increase the SF, by utilizing a higher quality mix and pouring additional concrete under the footing (thickened section). However, this only addresses those areas that are readilynd identified, and it doesn't provide expert documentation of the poor quality of the footing. Again, you need a qualified engineering firm to investigate the footing and slab, report on the condition of the footing in accordance with the building code requirements and designs.

now that you posted a 20 and you have had a chance to read a few more options on how to deal with the problem please consider this: i put my ideas forward under the experience based premise that you or your company would more than likely end up doing the entire job or have a competent buider do it for you; by experience it is more than likely that the sub who would do a job in this manner would more than likely have:

/ little but more likely no resources to attach to (register a lien upon); insurance? is that a trick question; state license whats' that? ; if you think your municipality and state officials are going to put much effort into dealing with this better start thinking again, by my experience that will only occur when or if it is going to cost them or the state money to deal with a h.&s.related problem immediately, or at some time down the road: more than likely it will sit on a shelf until some attorney is commissioned to file suit for some injury caused by the subs' ineptitude and the projects completion being done without a signoff by the county building services officer or without being given a pre occupancy status report;

/ at what point in the process did your project's insurance company agent register a notice of defect in construction plans or the actual workmanship? who did he or she give it to? if it was you your s.o.l. if it was the general contractor then he is;

/ a attorney who is more than wiling to tie you up in litigation well beyond the time the job had it been done properly in the first place should have taken to complete; but if as is usually the case the sub has no way of paying a attorney to defend the action getting it filed will be no problem, more than one problem will arise if you try to collect on the defaulted action;

/the company name he operates or trades is a paper tiger, this usually happens when a sub operates a company that is not in anyway connected with him so again you should seriously consider if attachment is less than likely going to be productive for you, more than likely it will become a retirement fund for attorney getting drawn into it;

/ your message did not indicate your position in the matter vis legal status or in bafflegab just what your position as a party to the issue is, e.g. landlord, tenant, another sub or ?;

/ further to that where was the county buiding standards enforcement officer in relation to the issue;

/as per the attorney's observation who hired the sub you or the general contractor? if it was the general go after him and his company. if it was you your s.o.l.; because by the way you asked the original question it appears you have some but a limited knowlege of the ways construction of a footing's pad(s) is normally done, if this is as i suspect correct, then you took it upon yourself to generate your own problems. the court will may more than likely consider that by asking those questions or one similar to them that you knew enough about building practices to be able to form a reasonable estimate of the subs work poor quality and prctice of workmanship and yet approved of its' being done by raising no objection to the mans' or his crews' actions when they poured.

if you are anywhere near Albany put a call into Ronald La Berge Sr. with the number of years he has under his belt as a consulting engineer dealing with problems like this he may be able to come up with a way to get around it, how much experience his son Ron Jr. has had in dealing with problems like this I have no clue.

i can only guess that andy from germany shares my thinking that the contractor should be pulled off the job. andy puts it better than i do the guy is dangerous.

Damn right I do.....

I would not let this Guy put up a rabbit hutch.....

this is a bit of info i think may be of value to RCE fron Nevada. i also add that what he puts out is valid but just like me maybe he can always learn something new.

BIGFOOT is made in Nova Scotia, it is specifically intended for pouring foundations in widely ranging qualities of soils that are found in the canada's north and the eastern half of north america, where or if you can get it in the states i don't know, but old Ron La Berge might. never having worked in a desert area i do not know how it would stand up in that form of climate

it does not shrink or shred as toilet paper tubes do, water and frost slide off its exterior surfaces so heaves are considerably reduced especially when the proper sized big foot base is installed and some solid material is tamped down beside its outer shell as the pour progresses. the best way i found to do that was using the poinjar vibrowhacker to tamp rip rap screed or other material around its' outside perimeter.

if the rebar is epoxied before it is set or the tie down bolts are epoxied to about 6" at one end for threading the box channel nuts into it is unlikely that in less than 50 years rust pockets will develop anywhere along thier threads so no cavitation is likely as well. a problem i had when doing a warm pour in -10 was capping the big foots lid to keep snow and salt from the plows off the pour's top was to solve that i cut the top half of a tuna can door bored holes following the tie down bolt pattern greased one side put it on the pour through the tie downs then let it sit for two days before we sited the box beam down.

to Sparkstation in Christchurch, i never knew I could put out info that would get a thank you, usually i recieve great piles of something else.

again thank you, may i have permission to print that off?

da'ber

Hello barfnagler - da'ber,

You are very

Yes, feel free to print that off, and I'm sorry you have usually received "great piles of something else"

I believe that if thanks are deserved, they should also be recognised, and acknowledged.

"The Awards Committee", please understand, is entirely my own idea.

I have used "The Awards Committee" system on other Community Forums, to add reader interest.

Add to the explanations a dash of humour, adding a few graphics, and it is retained in the memory of the reader, in a more complete way.

Kind Regards from far away........

I assume you mean the footings were strip footings with a cross section 10" deep and 20" wide. This is a pretty common footing for residential construction. The load is probably very low, perhaps in the order of 4000 or 5000 pounds per lineal foot. The footing is likely unreinforced or, if reinforced, minimally.

Placing concrete on straw is not an acceptable practice. If the thickness of straw is small and uniform, the results may not be too bad, but from your description of the site, it may be advisable to remove the footing and start over again.

If construction has advanced beyond the footing stage, removal of the footing is not an easy option. In that case, you may be advised to retain a structural engineer to assess the situation and make recommendations for remedial measures. You may also wish to consider another contractor for the remainder of the work.

Interesting, here in California they require minimum (4) #5 bar reinforcement in the footing, wire mesh in the house slabs, and the footings for residential typically run 12"w x 12" to 18" d. Though it is true here also that the loads are relatively light. However, I have conducted a number of investigations of house slabs that have settled differentially, and it always came down to the underlying subgrade support be insufficient at the time of concrete placement (soil too wet, compaction inconsistencies, erosion undermining footings and contractors just backfilling the holes, etc.). The walls in a few houses had cracks develop in the plaster large enough to insert your finger, cracks in the floor you could readily measure the drop across them, cabinets and fireplaces pulling away from the walls, roof damage, and doors that were misaligned and would not open or close. If you had 1/4" of straw to decay under the footing that is a lot of additional settlement that was not accounted for in the design, and the whole house can become misaligned, cracks develop, etc..

Of course that would be the case. The footing is meant to transfer the load to the soil. If two or more footings are loaded equally, but at least one is placed on poor soil, the structure will settle unequally putting the slab or wall in tension, which concrete cannot take before cracking.

Interesting, here in California they require minimum (4) #5 bar reinforcement in the footing, wire mesh in the house slabs, and the footings for residential typically run 12"w x 12" to 18" d. Though it is true here also that the loads are relatively light.

Minimum footing reinforcement of 4-#5 bars is a good idea, especially in seismically susceptible areas such as your west coast (ours too), but it is not a requirement in the Canadian Concrete Code A23.3. In fact there is an entire section in our code dealing with Plain Concrete. I do not have the latest ACI Standard, but ACI 318-63 contains Article 2307 - "Pedestals and footings (plain concrete)". It was on this basis that I suggested that a strip footing in upstate New York may be unreinforced or minimally reinforced.

If you had 1/4" of straw to decay under the footing that is a lot of additional settlement that was not accounted for in the design, and the whole house can become misaligned, cracks develop, etc..

I don't think I would worry very much about 1/4" of settlement, especially if it is reasonably uniform, but it is possible that larger pockets could exist within the confines of the footing and not be visible to the eye.

Best would be to remove the footing and start over, but if that's not an option, perhaps the existing footing could be underpinned so that it bears directly on new concrete below. That would need to be evaluated by a competent engineer.

Also, is the job location in a City, County, or other jurisdiction?

Who was (fulfilling?) the function of inspection for this job?

Was said work officially accepted by said jurisdictions's designated representative? etc.

Questions like these also need to be resolved....

Don't you mean 1/4" of additional differential settlement. Since the rate of decay, and loss of support, will not likely be consistent, different sections will settle more than others initially. Plus this is differential settlement beyond the 1/4" or so already accounted for in design. However, total settlements of 1/2" to 1" would be substantial and likely be the limit of the foundations design. So, even 1/4" of total settlement, beyond what would normally occur in the soil, would be significant.

Dear Guest,

I would not quarrel with post #34.

I don't believe I understand your point (post #35). What remedial measures are you recommending?

If the relevant jurisdiction does not "accept" the work, via their designated representative (ie: their inspector), then said jurisdiction should require, and direct, that the work be re-done, otherwise it would be pointless for them to have building standards in the first place. Politically, however, certain (flexibilities...) have been said to have been occasionally exercised in the past.

Subsequently, if the contractor in question wants to continue to conduct their business in said jurisdiction, it is (supposed to be) in that contractor's best interest to make good on their construction contract by bringing said work up to the standards of the relevant jurisdiction by re-doing the work the way it should have been done in the first place. (Said contractor would then be re-building his own business reputation by demonstrating that he holds himself accountable for conducting his work in a workman-like manner. Theoretically anyway, that's the way things are supposed to work...)

Theoretically, I agree with you. But, in my experience it rarely happens.

The "authority having jurisdiction" in my area would stop the work pending receipt of a letter signed and sealed by a professional engineer, registered in the Province of Alberta indicating either that (a) the work is deemed to be substantially in accordance with the code or (b) that remedial measures are recommended to bring it into compliance. In the latter case, another letter would be required upon completion of the remedial work stating that everything is acceptable.

this has taken on a life of its own.

i have had a few laughs as i read the replies to the inquiry being posted, as i read most of the posts some of which are in my opinion (again experience based) truly i-d-i-o-tic i have started to wonder: just how many of the "armchair engineers" who have posted thier comments: or the numerous attorneys who believe they have understood the question after maybe having read the original post once are just itching to show the world how well were they given a chance would use VERY costly litigation procecures to show off thier bafflegafflegagbag of words on a written document to further tie the poor .......: up in litigation he could never afford (if he could he sure as hell would never have put the post on the discussion page in the first place) have even seen a construction site; let alone busted thier butts using a mattock to crack footings set to grading pegs on a construction site which was a open field a few weeks prior to the middle of winter? gimme a break!

Hello barfnagler,

Take it easy, please.

Your Post Quality deteriorated, in not being your usual well-laid out, easy to read style.

Hope you are all OK at your end.

We don't want you carking it, over the Topic.

Cheers, Kind Regards....

i have had a few laughs as i read the replies to the inquiry being posted

Hey barf, at least we've kept you amused.

Wow did someone up there reference a 1963 copy of ACI 318. I can not find a version older than 1995 in my references.

"bafflegafflegagbag" ? ...

Quick, let me just add that one to my litany of litigious lexiconology. I'm sure I'll be able to use that one often to impress (alotsa) people...

baffle = confuse stop or bewilder

gaffle a form of gamecock or a device used to draw the string of a crossbow before knocking the quarrell

gag = a legal or mechanical device designed to prevent speech or oral communication by use of a device or in textural format which has or may be mechanically inserted into the mouth of a human or animal

bag = a device for carrying a collection of items, a term sometimes used used to denote the succesfull striking of a target or similar item by having used a weapon discharged in the direction of the same.

sorry i had to explain this for you, but since it will be poor form to have translated it as common bazzonga (the rotunda won't have that in thier legal lexicon library archives, you may find it in political joke archives though).