DECORATING A HOUSE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18267, 7 December 1922, Page 7

DECORATING A HOUSE.

PAINTER'S CLAIM FAILS. VARIATION OF CONTRACT. Of interest alike to property ownera and decorators was a caso heard beforo Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M , on Tuesday and yesterday in the Magistrate's Court, whoa Lawrenoe Spinley, painter and decorator (Mr. Campbell), of Devonport, sued Mrs. Edith Webley, widow (Mr. Terry) of 34, Hamilton Road, Ponsonby, for £96 12s Id, balance alleged to be due on £133 12s Id in respect of work done and materials supplied in painting, papering and decorating certain rooms at defendant's house, Tno defence was that the price was excessive in view of the arranged contract for £33. , , , .. The plaintiff said that after he had been working for a few days Mrs. Webley altered her mind, and required the woodwork to ho stained instead of painted. That necessitated a lot of extra work m removing paint. Plaintiff wanted a higliclaas dancing floor. The job occupied 618 hours. Witness garc his estimate for £03, and expected to complete the work in a fortnight. He told plaintiff the cleanmgoff of the paint would mean an additional cost of £25 to £30. H«i told her everything would bo charged up on a flat rate at the end of the job. Two master painters gave evidence that the job entailed a great deal of work. I One Baid the time it would take to remove the paint was a lottery. He suggested that payment should be on the basis of wages, time and material. Defendant said that plaintiff told her the paint would have to corns off, and he could not do the work for tho same money. Defendant told plaintiff she woulci not pay one penny beyond the contract price. She afterwards agreed, however, to pay £3 or £4 extra for new skirting boards. Plaintiff never gave any indication that he considered the contract had been broken. She had paid ' £37, being £3S, the contract price, and £4 for now skirting boards. , i E. 0. L. Reea, a bank teller, gave particulars of tho conversation between ' plaintiff and defendant in regard to tho alteration in the work. There was no reference made bv plaintiff to any such sum as £215 or £30 as the cost of extra ', work. ... i The magistrate, in delivering judgment, ' said the plaintiff had tendered to do the \ work for £33, and the amount of his aci count seemed to be an -unconscionable 1 one. If the amount were to be varied by 1 such an enormous addition it was for the I plaintiff to point out to defendant the very great cost. No attempt, in hi* opinion, was made to induce the defendant to believe that her proposals would • involve this ridiculous addition to the i original estimate. Judgment was for de- • fendant with costs. > =» > "Let's hail sun-kissed spring. "--Thorns. However, a sunny morning is often fol 'owed by a stormy afternoon. Be pre tared for the vagaries of spring weather, Keen Baxter's Lung Preserver always or » hand. "Baxter's" is a well-tried remedy foi • snring chills. Possesses remarkabk • penetrative properties, which root out eoldii and coughs in quick time. Also t fc beneficial tonic. 2s 6d a large bottle ai • 'hemists and stores. Don't bo led aw»;r by extremists. Vote State control 1 ii