BUILDING GAS-HOLDER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19502, 4 December 1926, Page 14

BUILDING GAS-HOLDER.

DISPUTE OVER CONTRACT. CLAIM AND COUNTER-CLAIM. CASE IN THE SUPREME COURT. i An involved and highly technical dis-■ pute between the Auckland Gas Company and the contractors for the erection of its largo new gas-holder at Devonport was begun in the Supreme Sourt yesterday before Mr. Justice Ostler. The hearing is likely to last several days. The Warren Engineering Co., Ltd, of Auckland (Mr. A. H. Johnstone and Mr. Tuck) sued the Auckland Gas Co., Ltd. (Mr. Richmond) for £958 4s 6d for expenses stated to have been incurred in carrying out the contract through the defendant company's alleged failure to carry out its part. The Gas Company counter-claimed for £SOO damages for delay in completing the contract and £154 for th<i hire of plant to the plaintiffs. The Warren Engineering Company alleged that it took the contract in March, 1924, at £2335. The work was the erection of the inner and second "lifts" of a three-lift telescopic gasholder, of which it was proposed to instal only two lifts at that time. The component parts had been made by Newton, Chambers and Co., Ltd., of Sheffield, and were to be complete ready for assembly, all rivet-holes, for instance, being already bored. The Gas Company was to supply all bolts, rivets and other material needed, and was to dig the pit and erect the permanent "umbrella" or internal framework to support the, steel container when empty of gas. Allegation o! Delay. The plaintiffs alleged that there was a fortnight's delay in completing the pit and framework, and when work had been proceeding for some time it was found that the pit was not truly circular and the concrete buttresses fouled the chnmber walls. The umbrella, on which the inner lift had to be built, was also root true. The steel plates and frames, when they arrived, proved to be not in conformity with the plans and specifications. The rivet-holes did not correspond, the plates were not all of the correct shapes and sizes. Some had been badly made and others damaged after manufacture. Six manholes had not been cut, and the full quantity of rivets, bolts and caulking ca.nvas was not supplied. There were also discrepancies between the plans furnished by the manufacturers. These faults, it was alleged, had caused extreme difficulty and much extra work in assembling the parts, besides delay. The Gas Company had lent a quantity of plant to enable this unexj pected work to be carried out. The total extra cost in time and labour was estimated at £958 4s 6d. Gas Company's Claim. The Gas Company denied that tho contractors were not expected to do work in preparing the parts for assembly, or that thp parts were not in conformity with the specifications. Tho only departure, it alleged, 'was that certain plates were delivered in two parts, requiring to be riveted together. However, the delivery of certain other parts ready riveted more than made up for'this. Regarding tho pit, it declared that if the container had been properly erected there would have been no trouble, It was the con tractors' duty to supply all rivets and bolts necessary for the assembly of parts prior to erection, The counter-claim for £SOO for delay was based on the £5 a day penalty provided m the contract, the work having been completed on December 5, 1924, instead of June 30. This delay, the defence alleged, was due to the contractors' default, negligence and failure to provide adequate plans for carrying osi the work. The sum of £154 was claimed for the biro to the contractors of an aircompressor, a gas-engine and pump, a, steam crane, a drilling amchmo and a quantity of scaffolding timber.,, Evidence was given at length bjr John W. L. Warren, manager for tho plaintiff company. A number o! large cardboard models were used to illustrate the evidence. Tho hearing was adjourned until today. ' .