CONSTRUCTION OF A STORE

Northern Advocate, 16 October 1931, Page 5

CONSTRUCTION OF A STORE

SPECIOUS ADVERTISEMENT

DAMAGES AWARDED

(Per Press Association.—Copyright.) WELLINGTON, This Day.

Reserved judgment in favour of plaintiff was given by Mr Justice Blair in a case heard in the Supreme Court, Wellington, in which Alexander Stewart Mitchell, architect and consulting mechanical and electrical engineer, claimed from Samuel T, Silver, structural engineer, £776 as damages for alleged misrepresentation as to the cost of reinforcing steel for use in the construction of a cool store in 1927. His Honour awarded plaintiff £323 with costs.

As early as 1914, said the judgment, defendant advertised that he was agent for indented steel bars, and his advertisement contained the following statement: —Designs and estimates of reinforced concrete structures on the indented bar system supplied free of charge.” “As a matter of fact,” said his Honour, “this advertisement was not a true statement of the position, inasmuch as it offered something ostensibly for nothing. “Without any intention of doing so, Silver had advertised that he would supply designs and estimates free on the indented bar system. This meant that if one used his indented bars he nominally got the design free, but, the truth was that although no account was sent in, or charge made for the design, Silver got fees indirectly by the price he placed upon the indented bars, of which he had a monopoly. The specious form of advertisement use'd by Silver led to a vicious practice, and it must have been obvious to Fim that it would do so.

“I think the weight of evidence and circumstances generally support the view that the real transaction was the actual cost of the steel plus a mere professional fee,” continued his Honour. “I cannot conceive it possible that Mitchell agreed that Silver was to be free to add not only reasonable professional fees but whatever profit he (Silver) chose to add to the steel.”