On Aug. 7, Restrepo listed the work he needed done on Home Depot's builder referral service and almost immediately got a call from an experienced licensed contractor from Norwood named Paul Darcy.

Darcy seemed enthusiastic and knowledgeable during an Aug. 14 visit to the condo, spending about an hour talking and taking measurements, Restrepo told me.

Restrepo, a college professor originally from Colombia, and Marks, a grammar school teacher, were impressed and grateful. They paid Darcy a $1,500 deposit for what the invoice described as "plans for kitchen remodel."

But Restrepo failed to get a signed contract spelling out what Darcy was expected to do and by what date, and how much (and when) Restrepo would pay him.

It was a mistake, Restrepo now acknowledges. He assumed Darcy understood the importance of getting the job done before the baby's due date a month later. You can guess what happened next: The job didn't get done, and the couple never got a refund from Darcy. On Sept. 11, Restrepo complained to Home Depot and asked for his money back after finding Darcy unresponsive to calls and texts.

Restrepo first contacted me for help in December. The baby was 3 months old by then, and the couple was still without a functioning kitchen. (They were using the bathroom sink to wash baby bottles and heating them in a microwave oven.)

Restrepo's attorney had sent a letter to Darcy in November saying he had "failed to do any of the work he promised" and demanding unspecified damages under the state consumer protection law (Chapter 93A), which allows a court that rules in favor of a consumer to award triple damages plus attorney's fees (which in Restrepo's case could exceed $5,000).

The letter from Restrepo's attorney detailed an almost two-week period between Aug. 29 and Sept. 10, when Restrepo reached out to Darcy seven times by phone or text. (Restrepo shared with me phone and text records that support his assertions.) During that period, Darcy picked up once, on Sept. 4, saying he would call right back but didn't, Restrepo said. That evening Darcy texted, suggesting they "chat in the morning." Restrepo called the next day but got no answer, and his three subsequent calls over the next two days were not returned either.

In the last text he sent to Darcy, on Sept. 6, Restrepo wrote: "We are expecting our child soon and really need our kitchen. We are counting on you."

In early December, Darcy replied to Restrepo's attorney, defending himself and saying it was Restrepo who became "impatient" as Darcy carried out his "investigative work" and formulated a plan for the kitchen renovation, including plans to test the electrical service in the 23-unit condo building.

Darcy did not specifically address Restrepo's contention that he dropped out of communication with him.

In the letter, Darcy blamed Restrepo for "lying and withholding ... correct information" in the complaint Restrepo made to Home Depot on Sept. 11. That complaint resulted in Darcy being terminated by Home Depot as one of its certified contractors, after the company said it tried to reach him multiple times without success. Darcy wrote that he planned to "litigate against" Home Depot based on "false information" provided by Restrepo and that it was "more than likely" that he would add Restrepo as a "litigant."

Home Depot says on its website that it does not guarantee the quality of the work of its certified contractors but "we do guarantee your satisfaction with our referral service ... and will refund up to $500 per unsatisfactory referral."

In Restrepo's case, Home Depot upped its usual amount by paying him $1,500, the amount of his deposit. Restrepo's acceptance of Home Depot's cash offer did not interfere with any legal claim he had directly against Darcy, the company said.

Darcy replied to my inquiry by saying he tried to move forward with the project but was hindered by not having approval from the condo building management.

"It is clearly stated in the condo bylaws that in order to renovate, alter or work in the building I am required to get approval from the management company," Darcy wrote to me.

Darcy told me that he asked Restrepo for a contact for the management company but didn't get it.

Restrepo provided me with records that show he texted the condo rules and regulations, among other documents, to Darcy on the first day they made contact. On the front page of the rules and regulations are email and phone contact information for the building manager.

It's possible Darcy overlooked that contact information. But Restrepo said Darcy never asked him for it until Aug. 28, two weeks after the deposit was paid, apparently in response to Restrepo's text asking, "is there anything you need me to do to advance the process?"

In a phone call with Darcy that followed, Restrepo said he provided the contact information. The next morning, Darcy made a one-minute call to the building manager, possibly leaving a voicemail, records Darcy shared with me show.

I don't think Restrepo can be blamed for Darcy's belated attempt to contact the building management, or for his apparent lack of follow-up after his call to the manager on Aug. 29.

Darcy also told me in an email that he spent 12 to 14 hours on the project before Restrepo "canceled."

Between Aug. 7 and Sept. 11, the day that Restrepo complained to Home Depot, Darcy spent a couple of hours on the phone with Restrepo, Restrepo's phone records show. Restrepo says Darcy made two site visits of about an hour each, including once with an electrician.

Darcy also made a five-minute call to the Hull town electrical inspector on Aug. 29, records Darcy shared with me show. And he got a quote on the cost of cabinets on Restrepo's behalf, according to Darcy's letter to Restrepo's attorney. Restrepo says Darcy never shared that quote with him, nor presented him with a design or plan for the kitchen.

The resolution: The records shared with me show Restrepo quickly sent Darcy the documents he requested, including the condo rules and regulations. The records show that Restrepo repeatedly asked what he could do to help Darcy move the project forward, with little response from Darcy. Restrepo seemed deferential to Darcy -- up to a point. After that, he pursued Darcy, pouring countless hours into it. He said he wants to be an example for other consumers.

I think Darcy should, at a bare minimum, return the deposit (Home Depot's payment notwithstanding). If Restrepo was impatient, I think that's understandable.

Two weeks ago, Restrepo filed an application for a criminal complaint against Darcy but that was denied after a hearing. He is contemplating filing a claim in small claims court.

The takeaway: When you hire someone to do a job, make sure both parties are aware of their responsibilities. The best way to do that is in a written contract specifying what tasks will be done by what date and how much the contractor will be paid upon completion of each stage of the project. Make payment contingent on completion of certain stages to incentivize your contractor to stay on schedule.