CLAIM FOR FEES

Grey River Argus, 9 February 1938, Page 8

CLAIM FOR FEES

i By Christchurch Architect JUDGMENT ENTERED FOR DEFENDANT CO. In the Magistrate’s Court at Greymouth yesterday, Mr. Raymond Ferner, S.M., heard a claim for £75, as the fee for the preparation of sketch plans, made bv Arthur Brabazon Ellis, registered architect of Christchurch (Mr. W. D. Taylor, instructed bv Messrs Joint, Andrews and Cotterell), against Griffen and Smith, Ltd . Merchants, Greymouth (Mr. J. W. Hannan). On the application of Mr. Tavlor, all witnesses were ordered out of Court. Mr. Taylor said that the claim was in connection with the drawing up of sketch plans of a new building to be erected for the defendant company at Greymouth. Counsel outlined interviews and discussions on the proposal, stating that the matter had been discussed bv nlaintiff with Both Mr. North and Mr. Smith. In 1937. Mr. Smith had informed plaintiff that owing to the high cost of material and the unsettled conditions, he did not intend to proceed with any building programme or carry out anv alterations. In March 1937. plaintiff rendered his account for £75, being one and a-half ner cent, on the estimate of £5.000. In reply, defendants contended that nlaintiff had agreed to prepare the sketch plans free of charge. According to North, it was arranged that defendants would not be under any obligation in connection with the pencilled sketch plans. Plaintiff emphatically denied that, at any stage, there was any discussion regarding fees, or any agreement that defendants would be under no obligation. The evidence would show that plaintiff took a great deal of trouble in connection with the matter. He made numerous visits to Greymouth, and brought an assistant to measure the building. He prepared about a dozen rough sketch plans, from which more or less final sketches were prepared. The final sketches were four in number, showing alternative building proposals. Plaintiff, in the course of his evidence supplementing counsel’s outline of the circumstances of the claim, said that, altogether, he did a good week’s work in connection with the matter. The charges made by registered architects were fixed by scale, throughout New Zealand. His out-of-pocket expenses amounted to about £lO. He denied that he was ever asked by defendants, what his charges would be. If a member, of the Architects’ Institute charged fees lower than those fixed by the scale, his action would involve suspension from practice for a period. To Mr. Hannan: He had charged the Greymouth Jockey Club scale fees. He drew up the sketch plans under instructions from Mr. North, who said that he wanted his office located where he could overlook all departments. Smith’s idea was to remodel the building, which might have been done at an approximate cost of £l,OOO. ' He was not aware that Mr. Hannan had forwarded all plans, which were in the hands of Griffen and Smith, to plaintiff’s solicitor in Christchurch. Smith had said that the premises were too cramped and thtt- one might “fall into a bath,” on entering them. He had been asked to draw up sketch plans, understanding ultimately that the defendant company would build. His approximate estimate was £6,500. He had not gone into the estimate thoroughly yet. Smith did not give witness any indication of rebuilding. It was Mr. North who discussed the question of rebuilding with witness. To Mr. Taylor: Mr. Smith had referred witness to Mr. North, who took an active part in the discussions- on the building proposals. Edward Herbert England, Architect, of Christchurch, said that he came over to assist Ellis in measuring up Griffen and Smith's premises. They were shown through the premises by North. There was a scale of charges for architects. This concluded plaintiff’s case. Mr Hannan in opening the case for the defence, claimed that the case was altogether devoid of merit, and that it was difficult to know what the claim was really for. Apparently the claim was for li per cent, on an estimate of £5OOO, but no estimate had been supplied. Plaintiff had said that he made a rough estimate of £6500 for a new building, but had based his claim of 11 per cent, on £5OOO. It was admitted that the quotation of renovating the showroom was discussed, but the claim was not in respect of that, and there had been on plan submitted for that work. It would appear that plaintiff had approached the firm and had been endeavouring to have it enter into a building programme, with the idea of securing architects’ work. He submitted that the claim could not succeed on the architects’ scale of set fees nor on merit. It would be stated by witnesses for the defence that plaintiff said he would submit sketch plans and that no charge would be made. John Henry North, hardware departmental manager for Messrs Griffen and Smith. Ltd., said that he had nothing to do with any other part of the business. Plaintiff called on witness, stating that he knew witness’s brother quite well in Christchurch. Plaintiff said he understood the firm contemplated rebuilding, and witness replied that it was only renovations that were required to the showroom. Plaintiff suggested that he should draw up some rough sketches and submit them to Griffen Smith, and if they were approved of they could then be properly drawn up. Plaintiff, when asked by witness what it would cost or if there would be any cost, replied “Oh, these rough sketches, there won’t be any cost.” Witness, plaintiff and Mr Alan Smith discussed the matter of renovating the showroom. Plaintiff did not seem to want to listen to what they were wanting, and he appeared to be wanting to put up a new building. None of the plans submitted were in relation to the showroom, as discussed by witness. Witness was definite in the matter i that the plans were only preliminary! plans and would be supplied without any costs. To Mr Taylor:. Witness had only discussed the enlargement of the showroom with plaintiff. Witness never asked Ellis for an estimate of the cost of a new building, and Ellis never mentioned £6,500. Witness believed that the plans not produced were sent to Mr Hannan’s office. He did not authorise Ellis to prepare any plans at all. It would not be right, to suggest that witness went beyond’ his authority in discussing re-building proposals with plaintiff. Allan Smith, Managing Director of

the defendant company, said that North who was hardware manager, had nothing to do with any re-build-ing proposal. He corroborated North’s evidence, that Ellis was brought into his office by North, who said that Ellis had offered to draw up sketch plans free of charge for renovations to the showrooms.

To Mr Taylor: When plaintiff called about the amount and asked for settlement, witness told Ellis that he had no claim. Witness was rather astonished when he saw a plan for a new building, as he had not intended to go on with any such programme. Mr Hannan said that since the plans had been forwarded to Christchurch, no complaints had been received from plaintiff’s solicitors about the full number of plans not being received. The Magistrate said that that had no bearing on the case. The impress sion this claim made upon him was that it was a somewhat unsubstantial one and a good deal more proof would be required before he could find for the plaintiff. It seemed that plaintiff had introduced himself to North and Smith and to some extent it was in the form of a canvas. On the evidence he had no alternative but to give judgment for the defendant company, together with witnesses’ expenses and solicitor’s fee, according to scale. On the evidence he would say that plaintiff could not recover on quantum meruit no matter how the proceedings had been brought. .