CONTRACTORS' DISPUTE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20304, 11 July 1929, Page 14

CONTRACTORS' DISPUTE.

WORKSHOPS AT OTAHUHU.

LARGE AMOUNT INVOLVED.

CASE IN SUPREME COURT. A substantial sum is involved in a railway contractors' dispute, the hearing of which was commenced beforo Mr. Justice Kennedy in tho Supreme Court yesterday. The plaintiffs are D. and J. Miller, Limited, plumbers, of Auckland (Mr. Northcroft), and tho defendants the Hansford and Mills Construction Company, Limited, structural engineers, of Wellington (Mr. Watson and Mr. Shorlund, of Wellington). The plaintiffs claimed £2374 as balance alleged to bo due on a sub-con-tract for tho plumbing work at the Otahului railway workshops, for which tho defendants wero the chief contractors. The workshops were completed by Hansford and Mills about tho middle of last year.

The defendants counter-claimed for £739 for various allowances to which it claimed it was entitled. Tho principal item in dispute between the parties was one of £1350, the estimated value of certain lead flashing, which, owing to the form of construction finally adopted, was not required tj be supplied and fixed. The plaintiffs claimed that they tendered as at a fixed price and wero entitled to that amount without any deductions, The defendants, on the other hand, claimed that the contract was —as to this item at anyrate — virtually a schedule contract, and consequently payment should be made on tho full material actually used. Other items for allowances and extras' arc in dispute. The Plumbing Sub-Contract,,

It was agreed to hear the claim and counter-claim together. Mr. Northcroft said that in September, 1926, D. and J. Miller, Limited, tendered for the plumbing sub-contract at the Otahuhu railway workshops for £12,400, and this was accepted. Plaintiffs claimed that this was a contract for a fixed sum and not a schedule contract. There was no attempt nt fixing the quantity, but only the price at which the material should be supplied. In somo cases the plaintiffs undertook to supply the material and in others the defendants, as head contractors, undertook to do so. The counter-claim included £273 charges for cutting 58 tons of lead into strips, an item of £374 for riveting 1240 brackets, and charges for the work of unloading. Before the plumbing contract was accepted Mr. M. Bowles, for D. and J. Miller, Limited, had agreed to reduce it from £13,400 to £12,400 on the ground that he had reason to believe that lie had tendered for more' lead flashings than would be required. The exact quantity of lead used must have been known to both parties because every pound of it came to the sub-contractors through the head contractors.

Mark Bowles, managing director of D. and J. Miller, Limited, said his firm had tendered on plans provided by the Railway Department in Auckland. In his first tender of £13,400 ho provided for 76j tons of lead, and allowed for flashings for all the sidelights. When the defendant firm pressed witness to reduce his tender because it had received a tender of £IOOO less lie agreed to do so, because ho was assured that the lead material would bo supplied ready to use, and becauso he believed the flashings could safely be omitted from the wall lights. Word in a Cablegram. No schedules of quantities were discussed. Flashings for the wall lights were not, called for during the progress of the construction, but ho was subsequently changed bv the defendants for the whole tons of lead. Defendants also claimed id a lb. for cutting the lead into strips, but it had been agreed between them that the lead was to be supplied to him in strips. A curious ambiguity was pointed out in a cablegram to witness, which read, "Fresumo mills will cut lead for flashings from standard sheets." Witness had thought the reference was to Mr. Mills, of Hansford and Mills, but it was now suggested that it meant lead mills. A halfpenny a lb. for cutting the lead was a serious overcharge. In the course of correspondence with the defendants ho came to tho conclusion that £I2OO was owing to him. At Otahuhu with Mr. G. Smith, of tho defendant company, ho verified tho fact that ho had used only 58 tons of lead. He considered the charge of 10s a ton for unloading was most unreasonable. Ho had watched four men unload a 12-ton truck in a quarter of an hour, which meant a cost of, roughly, 5s for unloading ten tons. Tho evidence of the principal witness for the plaintiffs, which lasted throughout tho day, was freely illustrated and explained by reference to sheets of plans and specially-mado models and by blackboard drawings.

Tho hearing of the case, which is likely to ho lengthy, will bo continued to-day,