Supreme Court HYDRAULIC PART OF MOWER JOB

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 28984, 27 August 1959, Page 7

Supreme Court HYDRAULIC PART OF MOWER JOB

“Handled Badly And Inefficiently”

W. H. Price and Son, Ltd., had carried out the whole hydraulic part of the Pyramid mower job badly and inefficiently, and lacked the experience or knowledge to take on a job of this type, Mr R. W. Edgley, counsel for Pyramid Machines, Ltd., submitted in the Supreme Court yesterday.

Mr Edgley was addressing Mr Justice Adams for the third day on his client’s £55,623 claim against Price and Son, and in defence of the £51,608 counterclaim.

Although Price had made a frenzied attempt to show that such a state of affairs had existed, it had never been stated to Pyramid Machines that the defendant company was not an agricultural engineering concern said Mr Edgley. In the defendant’s minutes of September 17. 1956, it was stated that the firm was advised to make it clear, “as unostentatiously as possible,” when servicing the machines or attending demonstrations that it was not responsible for the field side of the work.

“This passage shows that Price and Son was attempting to slide out by putting up a front about matters that were not correct, and putting themselves at a very late hour in a position which had not existed throughout its dealings -with the plaintiff.

“I submit that Price’s took on this job blindly and ignorantly and it was not until they reached the stage where it was getting disastrous that they realised that the job was getting beyond them.” said Mr Edgley. “It was not until disaster had overtaken them that they realised there was anything wrong with their work.” The whole hydraulic part of the mower job was done “badly and inefficiently” by Price’s. Mr Edgley said. “Although they tried hard they simply did not have the knowledge or experience to take on this job at all.” “Not Experienced”

There was no evidence that Price’s had warned Pyramid Machines. before taking on the job. that it was not experienced in this type of work. “They seized it with both hands,” said counsel. “It gave them ideas, if they had not already got them, of going into hydraulics in a really big way. “Who knows but that they may have envisaged a New Zealand empire of hydraulics run by their firms.” Pyramid Machines had been made use of to “pilot the way” for Price’s first major . development in hydraulics as applied to agricultural machinery, which was to be followed by a number of other applications which would have been exclusively those of the defendant company.

“It must have been clear to Price and Son comparatively earfy that there were problems associated with the Pyramid, mower that would need expert attention, and on which it stated get some proper outside opinions,” said counsel.

That the company recognised the advantages of obtaining knowledge and advice from larger countries was shown by the fact that in 1950 it had sent one of its staff to Australia to gain experience. It would not have been unreasonable to suggest that the firm, considering the price it was charging for the mower job and the profits it hoped to make on it, should have sent someone to Australia or the United States for a few weeks, even if it had cost them several hundred pounds. “If the energy used by Price and Son in preparing for this case had been used in other directions at an earlier stage it might have done more good,” said Mr Edgley.