CITY FIRM SUED

Press, Volume LXX, Issue 21281, 28 September 1934, Page 9

CITY FIRM SUED

+ CLAIM FOR ARCHITECT'S FEES PREPARATION OF PLANS A claim Jor £377 3s lor professional services was made in the Supreme Court yesterday by Benjamin John Ager, a Christchurch architect, against a firm of Christchurch merchants, John Bates and Company. Ltd. The case occupied the whole day and will be continued this morning.

Mr Justice Johnston was on the bench. Mr C. S. Thomas appeared for plaintiff and Mr W. J. Hunter for the defendant company.

The statement of claim set out details of the claim as follows: — (1) Making survey of defendant's property at the corner of Gloucester and Colombo streets —£2G ss. Preparing plans and incidental thereto for building on the land at an estimated cost of £23,397—£350 13s.

Alternatively the plaintiff claimed that during the period between November 1, 1933, and June I, 1934, for and at the request of the defendant, the plaintiff did much work and rendered services as an architect, and that £377 3s was a reasonable remuneration lor suc'h work.

The defence was a general denial (hat any money was owing.

Plans for City Property

Mr Thomas said that the defendant company bought a building on the corner of Colombo and Gloucester streets, where a picture theatre was now being built. Several schemes for altering the existing building or erecting a new building on the site were considered. The most expensive of :he--'e plans was one for a building costing more than £23,000. For the sketch plans of this four-storey buildin? the plaintiff charged lb per cent. 'I he defence, Mr Thomas understood, was on the lines that the work was done by Ager on the chance that he would get the supervision of the building if it should be erected. MiThomas said there was evidence that early in November ♦V.-j defendant approached Ager. The first movement did not come from Acer. The latter consulted with both Bates, sen., and Bates, jun.. regarding plans for Iho building. There were negotiations for Woolworths to take part of the ground frontage and all of the ground floor at the rear. Ager was. suspicious because he had seen plans prepared by ether architects, but he was assured that he was to be given supervision of all the structural work. Ager realised that the job might be involved, and so that there would be no misunderstanding he wrote to Bates and Company setting out the position and thanking the firm for its instructions. The letter was accepted without comment and Ager went into detailed discussions with Bates, sen., and Bates, jurj. Ager put in some 500 hours' work and prepared plans which were still in the possession of Bates and Company. The first schemes wcr" lor nlterations to the existing building, but !ater plans were prepared for n big fourstorey building. The whole scheme had since been abandoned, because the firm hsvl secured a good tenant in a picture theatre firm, which insisted on having its own architect. Five days were SDent by Ager in the first place on a detailed survey of the building. Ager was then instructed to prepare plans for a building of three storeys, which could be increased to four if necessary. Later the Messrs Bates instructed him to go into the question of a basement, and still later the addition of a roof garden. A £ 23,000 Buildin? "It seems that the Crystal Palace was the limit until the time came to pay for it." said Mr Thomas, who stated that after Ager had prepared rough specifications for a building costing £23,397, the Messrs Bates reverted to consideration of altering the two-storcy building at a cost of between £350 and £SOO. Later they suggested that the position could be met by the alteration of the stairway for about £IOO, a job for which Ager would receive about £6. Again the Messrs Bates considered the three or fourstorey building and Ager was asked to provide perspective drawings of the building as it would appear when completed. On May 4 he handed in these plans, and on the following day was told by Bates, jun., that there was some question of a picture theatre being built on the site. Ager would say that when he saw the Messrs Bates shortly after, their whole attitude had changed, and it was obvious that they wanted to get rid of the liability for his work. He was informed that the picture concern had insisted on the plans being prepared by its own architect, and in the subsequent conversation the Messrs Bates denied liability. Ager pointed out that he had written to them setting out his position and Bates, sen., declared that, the letter had never been received. A clerk was instructed to bring in the correspondence file and the letter was included in it. Bates, sen,, remarked that there would be "trouble for someone about this." As an indication of the state of mind Bales, sen., was in. Mr Thomas said that the latter accused Ager of insulting his daughter. Ager replied that, he did not know Bates's daughter and had never seen her, and he got. Bates'.s daughter to confirm this. Ager said he required payment for his in accordance with the rules of his* profession. Ager was offered £SO to supervise the work of Mr Willis, the architect appointed, who, it was stated, had accepted £IOO for his work on two theatres. This offer Ager refused. Mr Thomas said that architects' fees were fixed by statute, so it was not a question of whether the 11 per cent, charged by Ager was a reasonable amount. lie added that Bates was one of the largest landholders in Christchurch and had plenty of experience in dealing with property. Plaintiff's Evidence Benjamin John Ager, the plaintilf, , gave evidence along the lines of Mr Thomas's address. He said that he put in between 500 and 600 hours' work on the plans, which were very , little short of working drawings. Cross-examined by Mr Hunter, witness said that he kept himself fami- : liar as far as possible with city property transactions. Mr Hunter: Early in 1933 you became a land agent's salesman. —Yes, and glad of it. You went to Bates and endeavoured to effect the sale of Bowron's Buildings?— Yes. Witness said it was not correct that he had suggested that. Messrs Bates should buy the building and employ him as architect on the alterations. He showed them plans of the building as it would look when finished, for which he had been paid by the owners as architect. He had not stated to Mr 1 Bates, jun., that he intended to defy the Institute of Architects concerning : touting for work.

To Mr Thomas witness said that architects had fallen on lean times in the last few years, and some had even been on relief work. He had accepted a position as land agent's salesman in order to make a living. Witness was now once more an architect in a fairly i large way, and had recently completed large jobs in Ihe city. I Expert evidence was called by IVlr j Thomas to show that Ager's charges i were reasonable. j Case for Defence ' Mr Hunter, for the defence, said that j Bates, sen., would say that in 1028, when lie ilrst. came into touch with Ager regarding the Union Building, Ager produced plans prepared by him of other buildings erected in various parts of New Zealand. Ager suggested that the building should be altered or pulled down, and counsel submitted that that could not be regarded as professional work. Ager was not approached by Messrs Bates in 1933. He had approached them as a land salesman endeavouring to sell Bowron's Buildings, but he had also made proposals that alterations be made and that he should be employed as architect. On that principle, which was one of business rather than profession. the whole of the subsequent negotiations proceeded. Ager was out to get business and to induce and persuade persons to give him business, and if he failed in his object he must get nothing. In November, when there was an understanding between Bates and Company and Woolworths, Bates, sen., received the letter from Ager. He attached no importance to it because he was quite confident at the lime that the scheme would go through and he would have given the architect's work to Ager. Ager was endeavouring to get business, and Bates and Company made an arrangement with Woolworths whereby Ager received the greater portion of the architect's work on the building. When the scheme eventually fell through Bates and Company offered Ager 50 guineas as a gratuity for the work he had done, and 25 guineas for further work in perusing plans. Although the Messrs Bates told Ager that they would not have a building of more than three storeys Ager pressed them, and when they said they would consider a rough sketch of something larger, Ager presented an elaborate plan of what was practically a five-storey building. Ager was not the firm's architect at all, and took up the matter of the new building in a speculative way. He should not be entitled to claim fees according to the professional scale. John William Bates, governing director of the defendant firm, and John Edward Bates, a director, gave evidence as outlined by Mr Hunter.