DOCK CONTRACT.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 105, 3 May 1912, Page 8

DOCK CONTRACT.

PITCAITHLY V. M'LEAN ft, SON FORMER'S APPEAL DISMISSED REFERENCE TO PRIVY COUNCIL' MENTIONED. Important questions of -law in relation to the contract for the construction of the Wellington dock wero dealt with in a judgment of the Court of Appeal today. Last year Pitcaithly and Co. proceeded to recover £20,000 from John M'Lean and Son for the latter company's failure to purchase the full quantity of aand and gravel required t:> complete tho contract. A upecial case waa staled and heard in November by tho Chief Justice (Sir Robert •Stout). Tho basis of the action was an agreement made on 6th February, 1907, between defendant* and plaintiffs. Tho •contractors agreed to deliver in railway trucks at the dock siding or sidings, Wellington, all assorted gravel and cand by and in accordance with the specifications for tho Wellington graving dock attached to the contract entered into by the employers with the Harbour Board, which shall, from time to time, be ordered or required by the employers. The Chief Justice, in giying judgment, said he was of opinion that the agreement was to supply a, definite quantity of gravel, but the dominant words were "which shall from time to time bo ordered or required by the employ ere." The contract did not say that if concrete were noL required, 6aud and gravel were to' be ordered. Therefore, in^ his opinion, unless there was an implied warranty that the dock contract would be completed, and in the way the specifications provided (by the use of concrete), there was no undertaking on the part of the employers to order aand and gravel. He was of opinion that he could riot infer such a promise in the agreement between the parties. From this decision, Pitcaithly and Co. appealed to tho Court of Appeal, on the ground that the judgment wah erroneous in" point of law. Mr. H. D. BolL K.C., and Sir John Findlay, K.C., with them Mr. D. S. Smith, appeared for appellant company, and Mr. C. B. Morifon, v/ilh him Mr. A. W. Blair, for respondent company. A majority of tile , Court—Justices Edwards and Chapman — were of opinion that the, n-ppeal ehould bo dismissed, but Sir Joshua Williams held that it should be allowed. The former opinion becaiwe the jud^rhent, and the appeal wae dismissed, with costs on Ihe highest (scale. _ Mi' John Fitjdluy was pcritutari <-onditiuiul lo^\c lv Jippsitl lis 1h.9 i'ijb'/