BUILDING COSTS

Press, Volume LXXXV, Issue 25884, 17 August 1949, Page 8

BUILDING COSTS

CLOSE ESTIMATE DIFFICULT MAGISTRATE’S COMMENT With high costs recently prevailing in the building trade, it was extremely diificult for any builder to make a close estimate of what a job was going to cost, said Mr F. F. Reid. S.M., in the Magis- : trate’s Court yesterday giving judgment on a case in which a builder’s price for an alteration was disputed on the grounds that it was excessive in comparison with the estimate previously given. To-day if a person was told that the price for a building job or repairs to a motor-car would be about a certain figure he had to be prepared for the ultimate price to be 10 to 15 per cent, more than the estimate, said the Magistrate. The Magistrate gave judgment for L. H. Hannah and Son, Ltd., builders and contractors, against Alfred Williamson, for £4B 4s Bd. Hannah and Son. Ltd., had completed alterations to Williamson's combination shop and residence at a price of £223 4s Bd, but defendant had paid only £175, said counsel for the plaintiff (Mr L. J. H. Hensley). Mr C. V. Lester appeared for defendant. Frederick Schwartz, a costing clerk employed by Hannah and Son. Ltd., said he had given Williamson a "rough” estimate for the provision of a sunroom at £lBO, which did not include certain works subsequently Building Permit Figure Leonard Harold Hannah, managingdirector of the firm, said the reason for the figure of. £l6O being given as the value of the alterations in the application for a building permit was that a good deal of maintenance work was included in alterations, on which the City Council did not expect to collect fees. Hannah said that the final price had worked out in excess of the estimate because work not originally foreseen and other additona) works had been carried out. Defendant said that Schwartz had originally estimated the cost at £l6O and “may be less.” No provision had been made for any increase and because a glass door, originally planned, had not been erected, he thought the final price might be less. George Daniel Simpson estimated the value of the work done at £lB7 3s. “This was a simple job with no unforeseen difficulties,” he said. In giving his decision the Magistrate said he was prepared to accept that Schwartz’s estimate was £lBO, and not £l6O as stated by Williamson, who might have been influenced by the figure mentioned in the building permit. In this respect he was assisted by Simpson’s estimate of £lB7 as the value of the work. As the final price included some extra work not contemplated when the estimate was given, and there did not appear to be any firm or contract price between the tw’o parties, the defendant would have to pay, he concluded.