DISPUTED CONTRACTS.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 3710, 20 December 1912, Page 3

DISPUTED CONTRACTS.

A CLAIM AND COUNTER CLAIM

BUILDER AND PAINTER

A case of interest to contractors lyas heard before Mr W. A. Barton, S.M.j yesterdiay when Robert Garfcshore (Mr Burnard) claimed from Walter Henry Clayton, trading as Clayton Bros., the sum of £8 for alleged breach of contract and value of work done. Defendant put in a counter claim of £5 15s on the ground that plaintiff bad failed to perform an agreement. Mr Burnard said that the claim and the counter claim were entirely distinct and that it would be the best procedure for him first to prove the claim. The claim was really based on a breach of contract and included a charge'for the work actually done in pursuance of the contract. Plaiuiff was engaged by the defendant’s foreman to perform a contract for +he painting of a house at Mangapap.i. In pursuance of that contract, plaintiff sent a man out to do the priming. Tho value of this work, material, carriage and labor, was £3. The carpenters proceeded with the work at tho house and plaintiff awaited the usual notification to go on. He did not receive any word, however, and it turned out that a second painter was employed to do the work. Defendant’s foreman took the work wrongfully out of plaintiff’s hands. !For breach of contract, plaintiff claimed £5, being the amount he would make ordinarily out of such a job. Plaintiff gave evidence concerning the claim in support of counsel’s statement. He waited for four weeks after doing the priming for notification to go on and went to see Mr Clayton, who said lie knew nothing about tho job. Wykls, defendant’s foreman, called defendant aside and witness heard him say, "we have got a painter out there who has got all the scrim up.” To Mr Burke: Witness remembered giving Wylds a price for some jobs at Kaiti and being told that his prices were too high. He did not state to Wylds that, as the Kaiti jobs had gone to someone else at a lower price he would not complete tho job at Mangapapa . J. D. Tustin said that the practice was for a builder to notify a painter when the contract or the remainder of a contract could be gone on with. T< Mr Burke: He gathered, from what Wylds said, that he did not went Gartshore to go on with the job. Four weeks was not a long period to wait for word to go on with a job. Mr Burke said that the defence in short was that plaintiff threw up tho contract before it was complete. Herbert Wylds said that plaintiff quoted a price of £29 for papering and painting a house at Mangapapa. A fortnight later witness told plaintiff that the house was ready for priming and plaintiff sent a man along, who did three-quarters oT the work and left. Witness detailed the obtaining of prices for other jobs which another contractor got, and said that plaintiff, in a rage, said. "I will t'-ro-.v ri; all tho work.” Witness waited for four weeks to see if plaintiff would change his mind and then got someone else to do the work at £32. counting in the price of too priming already done. For the pruning completed by plaintiff £2 would be ample.. To Mr Barnard: Gartshore specially mentioned that he would not go on with the Mangapana job. A profit of £1 or £5 on such a job was reasonable. ■ I

O. li. Muller, painter, said chat, in Juno last lie quoted £32 for the Mangapapa job. He valued the priming already done at £2. About onefilth of the priming v, as left undone, hut the lmu.se was probably not ready for tins poi tion to be done when the woi Ic was ('one. John Donkin said he did the priming in the-house at Manga papa ana worked for 1 \ days. Air Oartshore telling him to go to another job. To Mr Barnard: "Witness had practically finished the priming work. His Worship said that, as plaintiff had not completed his contract, he was not entitled to claim anything. Judgment would therefore he for defendant, with witnesses’ expenses (14s), solcitor’s fee (£1 Is) and Court costs (6s).

The heaving of the counter claim for £5 15s was tlien proceeded with. Mr Burnard agreed to admit the contract at Manga pa pa as fixed at £29 and also that the contract was broken. H. Wylds -said that, on May 29, Gartshore gave him prices of £24 10s for each of two houses in Wellington Street, Mr Single, who was building the house, specially asking that Gartshore should be the painter. When Gartshore refused to do the work, the contract was lot to another contractor for £sl 15s. Witness had based Ins tender on Gart.shore’s price. The loss of £2 15s on this job and £3 on the Mangapapa io!> made 'up the £5 10s.

'to Mr Burnard: He was certain that Gartshore’s tender for the Wellington Street jobs were actually accepted. _ Mr Burnard said that the real question now to he decided was as to the extent of the loss. Defendant denied that he- entered into a contract for the WcOii.pLon Street contracts. He Mad mo.:o' v put in his p. ices. but had received no notification of acceptance. J D 'i ustin said that the rule inij that tlio price for a job was lower when one price was got than when tenders were. got. Givrtehore denied having- received any notice that his tender for the Wellington Street jobs was accepted. To Mr Burke: He did not understand that it was an arranged affair that lie should get the work. His Worship allowed £2 .on the Mangapapa- contract. On the other contract the evidence was conflicting and he would allow plaintiff £2. Parties would pay their own costs.