Supreme Court Builder Not Liable For Extra Foundations Cost

Press, Volume XCVI, Issue 28447, 29 November 1957, Page 6

Supreme Court Builder Not Liable For Extra Foundations Cost

A builder who had contracted to erect a house was held to be not liable for the cost of extra foundations found to be necessary after work had started on the house when a claim for £BO2 18s 6d was heard by Mr Justice K. M. Gresson in the Supreme Court yesterday. The plaintiff, William Augustinus Theodorus Maessen (Mr A, K. Archer), claimed from Peter Anthony Klaver (Mr H. S. Thomas) the balance of the purchase price of a house in Hargood street, Woolston, and the cost of extra work. His Honour upheld the plaintiff’s claim for the cost of foundations, and held that the contract price of the house included an allowance for an unspecified amount of labour to be provided by the defendant. The case was adjourned for the parties to decide on the amount to be paid for the extra foundations. The claim related to the building of a house by Maessen for Klaver, and there were two main points of dispute in calculating the final amount due by the defendant, said Mr Archer. The plaintiff claimed that he entered into a contract with Klaver to erect a house for him in Hargood street for £2280. This price was fixed on the understanding that Klaver contributed labour on the property throughout the erection of the house. The defendant claimed that under this contract he was*to be allowed £lOO oil the price of the house for his labour, making the price £2lBO, said Mr Archer. After work was started on the house it was found that extra foundations would be required because of the nature of the section, said Mr Archer. The question was who was to pay for this additional foundation wont.

It was also claimed by Maessen that Klaver asked him to build a terrace in addition to the original work.

Wages Refused After working for 10 weeks on the house Klaver had asked Maessen for wages, which were refused. The defendant then left the job and did not contribute any more work. As the result the job took the plaintiff much longer to complete; he claimed that 20 days’ extra work was required, and for this he sought £l6O. The cost of the house without the extra work and without the defendant’s labour was estimated at £260(1. Mr Archer said. But the defendant was claiming that his labour more than made up for the difference in contract price. The fact that the actual cost of constructing the house without taking into account the plaintiff’s labour was £2175 showed that the claim was justified. Evidence in support of the claim was* given by the plaintiff; Colin Maitland Ashley Shepherd, a State Advances Corporation surveyor; and Bertie Arthur Grigg, a Christchurch City Council building inspector. Klaver in evidence said that Maessen had agreed to build him a house for the amount of the loan of £2OOO. The idea was that he should help Maessen now and again with some of the heavy work, but there was no suggestion that this labour was going to be in reduction of the price. Witness said he had worked for 460 hours on the house. ’ Cross-examined by Mr Archer Klaver said that he had visited the State Advances Corporation with Maessen before applying for a loan but the foundations for the house had not been discussed. He had put in an application which stated that the price of the house was £2280 .because £2OOO seemed too cheap. Maessen had told him he would not hold him to the other £2BO.

“Just a Dodge” “Was what you said about the price in your application untrue?” his Honour asked, after reminding the witness of the statutory declaration he had signed.

“Well, yes,” replied Klaver. His Honour: In fact it was just a dodge—to put it colloquially.— Yes. Mr Archer: Do you expect the Court to believe that Maessen agreed to build you a house for only £2ooo?—Yes. The witness added that he expected to be able to pay for the house entirely from the loan received from the State Advances Corporation and his only contribution would be some of the labour. Mr Thomas submitted that additional burden of the extra foundations should be borne by the contractor whose duty it was to ascertain the nature of the soil before he started building. Council said that if the plaintiff failed to do this the cost should not be put upon the defendant. “I hold that the contract price was £2280 on the basis that the defendant would provide an unspecified amount of labour,” his Honour said. The labour provided by the defendant discharged his obligation and he was not entitled to be credited for that labour. On the other question, his Honour upheld the plaintiff’s claim for payment for the cost of extra foundations. “I hold that the plaintiff may debit the defendant for any amount that may be proper for the cost of the extra foundations,” he added. “The case is now adjourned in the hope and expectation that the Court will not again be troubled with it.”