LIABILITY FOR ACCOUNT

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27442, 31 August 1954, Page 12

LIABILITY FOR ACCOUNT

ELECTRICAL WORK z IN OFFICE JUDGMENT AGAINST • OWNER A dispute between the tenant and the owner of an office building at 5 Victoria street, Christchurch, over payment of an account of £ll6 15s lid for alterations to the building’s electrical system was heard in the Magistrate’s Court yesterday. Mr L. N. Ritchie, S.M., gave judgment -for C. F. Cotter, Ltd., electrical engineers (Mr W. F. Tracy) against A. D. Tucker, the owner (Mr P. H. T. Alpers). The other defendant in the case was Stuart Wearn Advertising, Ltd., the tenants (Mr K. A. Gough). Tucker was also ordered to pay all costs of the action. James Francis Albert Cotter, managing director of the plaintiff company, said he visited the office building and was told what work was needed r to be done. Some work was done about the same time for Stuart Wearn Advertising, but this was paid for and was separate from the account sent to Tucker. A considerable amount of work had to be done oh the premises —renewal of old wiring, modernisation of circuits, and installation of modem plug and light fittings. The account for alteration work was sent out to Tucker on March 15. He disclaimed responsibility and the account was sent to Stuart Wearn Advertising, who Said Tucker was responsible. Considerable correspondence on the matter followed. Tucker said in evidence that he had owned the property for five or six years. The office leased by Wearn had been living quarters. When he had leased the shop below very little work had been done by him; most of the renovations had been carried out by the tenant. Towards the end of last year the flat became vacant and Wearn had discussed a lease. They had discussed alterations. He had agreed to pay for certain alterations and electrical installations. More light fittings were installed than he ’considered necessary. If he had known new wiring was needed he- would not have gone on with the lease. “I object to ail work done over and above what I stipulated. I don’t think all the work would have been necessary if there had only been done what I wanted carried out,” said the witness. Stuart James Wearn said that in the discussions before his company took up the lease it was clearly understood that Tucker would remodel the premises. With the company manager, Gordon Stephen Griffiths, Wearn went round the premises with Tucker as he marked the places where electrical outlets were required. A man called Ward had been employed as a carpenter by Tucker and he had dealt with Cotter’s.