COST OF STEEL

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 291, 4 September 1931, Page 5

COST OF STEEL

Architect Sues Engineer BUILDING CONTRACT Claim for £776 Damages The alleged excessive cost of steel used in the construction of the New. Zealand Trawling and Fish Supply Company s building in Cable Street in 1927 formed the subject of further litigation in the Supreme Court yesterday. Alexander Stewart Mitchell, architect (Mr. Parry) proceeded against Samuel T. Silver, .structural'engineer (Mr. Hoggard, with him Mr.' Sidey) to-recover £526/1/8 as special damages and £250 as general damages frqm the defendant, on account of Silver allegedly‘ havtag misrepresented the cost of reinforcing steel used in the building.. The statement of claim sets out that in 1927 the l plaintiff wag employed by the Nevy. .Zealand Trawling and lush Supply Company, Ltd., to prepare plans, and specifications, and subsequently to act as architect and consulting engineer tor the erection 6f reinforced concrete buildings for the company in Cable Street, Wellington. The Fletcher Construction Company, Ltd., eventually secured the building contract. The architect, it was alleged, had sought the advice of the engineer in his capacity of expert, in steel construction matters, and the engineer advised thht steel of the quality and quantity required should be purchased from John Duthie. and Co., Ltd., for £1164, supplied on the site of the proposed buildings.,. It was alleged that the engineer had falsely represented to the plaintiff that £1164 was the price which should properly be paid by the Trawlirg and Fish Supply. Company for the steel required for the work. It was alleged that the engineer knew, or ought to have known, that'reinforcing steel of the same description,, quality, and quantity as that purchased was obtainable in Wellington delivered, on • the site of the building at prices aggregating £682/8/4.

An Earlier Action. In July, 1930, the Trawling Company began an action against the architect for allowing, providing, or directing the contractor to allow in the specifications £IIU4 for the price of the steel when the same steel could have been obtained for £682 8/4, and claimed £482/11/8 special damages, and £5OO as general damages, a total of £982/11/8. The plaintiff .confessed judgment, for £526/1/8, and judgment was sealed by the Trawling Company in accordance with such confession. The architect now claims that he had suffered damage through acting upon the advice of the defendant, and claimed £526/1/8 by way of special damages, the amount of damages and costs for which he is liable to the Trawling and Fish Supply Co., Ltd., and £250 as special damages. , The defence was a denial of the allegations made by the plaintiff. For approximately twenty years, the statement of defence set out, the architect had made a practice *f getting the engineer to prepare estimates and plans in connection with reinforced concrete buildings upon terms that the defendant, being also a merchant, should cover himself for his time and trouble by his profit on the steel to be used in the construction of the building. The price was usually at a fixed amount per ton, in which event the engineer ran no risk should his estimate of the quantity of steel required prove inaccurate. In this instance, a firm price for the whole of the steel required in the building was given by the engineer, who ran the risk of making a loss should his estimate of the amount the steel required prove inaccurate, architect was free to conclude arraugements with other structural-engin-eer-merchants, and in such case, and, in cases where no contract was let, the defendant would receive no reward whatever for his trouble. _ This was a general practice among New Zealand arcbitects' profit Only Remuneration. The defendant admitted that the contractor purchased- from his agents, John Duthie and Co., Ltd., and paid £1164 for reinforcing steel for the; Trawling Company’s building, but denied the other allegations. For the whole period during Which the engineer had been furnishing to the architect estimates and plans for reinforced concrete .buildings, the defendant had never received, been promised, or offered by the plaintiff any remuneration other than the profit made on the supply of steel to contractors. i Evidence along the lines of the statement of claim was given by plaintiff and as to the price of reinforced steel m ivzi was given by Charles S. Moore, departmental manager for Briscoe and Co., and Walter Harold Barnes, indent agent for E. W. Mills and Co. , 'The case'will be resumed at 10 o clock on Monday next.

Late News.