CONTRACT SUB-LET

King Country Chronicle, Volume XXV, Issue 3370, 26 September 1931, Page 5

CONTRACT SUB-LET

"WITHOUT CONSENT OF MINISTER." ARRANGEMENT KEPT SECRET. DISCLOSURES IN CLAIM BY CARRIERS. Reserved judgment was given in the Magistrate's Court yesterday by Mr. F. W. Platts, S.M., in the action heard last court day, in which A. J. H. and A. R. J. Peterson, brothers, carriers, of Waitanguru, claimed from John Anderson, of Pio Pio, storekeeper, and W. J. Woods, contractor, Pio Pio, the sum of £2B 6s. 3d. for cartage and benzine supplied in connection with a lime-crushing contract.

In giving judgment for the plaintiffs, His Worship said: In October, 1930, the defendant John Anderson in a public competition by tender, secured a contract from the Agricultural Department to crush 1000 tons of lime at 14s. lid. per ton. He took Woods in as a partner, but did not disclose this fact to the Department until after the completion of the contract. Ostensibly, John Anderson carried out the contract himself—that is so far as the public records show—and he received the contract money from the Crown amounting to £429. Peterson Brothers now claim from John Anderson and Woods £2B 6s. 3.d for cartage and benzine supplied in connection with the contract.

"Their claim is met by several defences. John Anderson pleads that he should not be held responsible for any part of the debt, because he was only nominally the contractor. His evidence showed that he had arranged with Woods to tender for the contract in his (Anderson's) name, but on behalf of Woods, and that although the contract was in his name and later.in the name of Anderson and Woods, it was all the time Woods' contract. It is clear that an arrangement of this kind had to be kept seci'et, for any revelation would have led to N the cancellation of the contract. So John Anderson held himself out to the public and the plaintiffs as the contractor, and as we have seen, he ostensibly carried out the contract and received the contract moneys. "He induced the plaintiffs to believe he was the contractor and to act on that belief. So far as the plaintiffs are concerned, therefore, he is precluded from denying that he was the contractor.

Defendant's Claim

"The defendant Woods sets up that he is not liable for plaintiff's claim because he sub-let the contract to C. J. Allcock and to Lindsay Anderson. He contends that they should pay it. It is admitted that they are not financial. It was shown that first Allcock and then Lindsay Anderson was in charge of the crushing plant. But the evidence that these men were independent sub-contractors is very unsatisfactory. Only very meagre details of the sub-contract were given to the court. Woods says he paid Allcock and L. Anderson Bs. a ton for crushed lime and they provided all labour and expenses. If this is correct, then Woods apparently retained 6s. lid. a ton for merely supplying the plant. No accounts to verify the alleged sub-contract were produced to the court. • Whereas Woods swore he had lost £6O over the subcontract and spoke of some trouble under the Workers' Compensation Act, Lindsay Anderson freely denied this evidence.

"A Dummy."

Allcock admitted that he had dummied for Woods in another contract and is still acting as a 'subcontractor' for him. Explaining why plaintiffs' account had not been paid, Allcock says: 'I asked Woods for a cheque. We found we had no ink. Finally Woods was to send a cheque out, but he did not do so.' It was admitted that Woods controlled the finance, paid the wages and apparently paid all the contract accounts except plaintiffs.'

"Suspicion Created."

"Apart from the suspicion naturally created by such evidence as this, the legal position is definitely against Woods. It was a condition of his lime-crushing co'ntract that without the consent of the Minister, it was not to be sub-let. No such consent was obtained and any sub-letting would have to be kept secret or the contract would be imperilled. "If there was a sub-contract, John Anderson and Woods were afraid to disclose it . They continued to hold themselves out as the contractors. There was an instance of this when A. Peterson, one of the plaintiffs, early this year handed his firm's account, then amounting to £2O, to Woods at Pio Pio and asked for payment. Woods did not say: 'This contract has been sub-let to Allcock and L. Anderson, and you must look to them for payment of your claim.' Peterson swears that Woods promised to pay it by the 20th of the month. Woods' evidence is that he said he would be settling about the 20th. "In these circumstances defendant cannot now escape liability for' the plaintiffs' claim by sheltering behind this alleged sub-contract. As to the items in the statement of claim, there is a conflict of evidence, but in all the circumstances the court prefers the ■ story of the plaintiffs. It shows that Anderson ordered part of the cartage to be done and that Woods also authorised some of it. The benzine was delivered at the crushing plant to the knowledge .of the defendants by instructions first from Allcock and later from L. Anderson, when- these men were respectively in charge of the crushing operations. John Anderson and Allcock directed that accounts were to" be made out to the Lime Company, c/o Woods. Most of the accounts were so directed. It was reasonable to leave these accounts at the works. The accounts produced in court to-day have evidently been prepared for the occasion. There will be judgment for plaintiffs for the full amount claimI ed with costs."

Mr. E. M. Mackersey appeared for the plaintiffs and Mr. H. T. Morton for defendants.