A BUILDING CONTRACT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIII, Issue 7977, 7 December 1911, Page 1

A BUILDING CONTRACT

WHO IS RESPONSIBLE ? ' Litigation regarding a housebuilding contract at Hastings occupied tho attention of his Honor tho Chief Justice (oh Robert Stout) in the Supremo Couit yesterday afternoon. • Tho plaintiffs ivero James and Archibald McLeod Wilson, of Wellington ■building contractors, and the defendant was Charles James Stanton Harcourt, ot Wellington, land and estate agent. Mr C. B. Morison, instructed by Mr Gray, appeared for plaintiffs, and Air A. W. Blair for defendant. , In their statement of claim plaintiffs said that about July 1906, defendant employed them to erect a house in Southampton street, Hastings, for tho sum pt XliOo. . Extra works and alterations in connection with tho work cost .£378 9s 2d. Plaintiffs had received JH3BS 14s lOd, and there was still duo to them the sum of .£366 Os Id, together with .£35 for preparation of plans and specifications, and ,£3 3s for inspection and valuation work done. In tho statement of defence Air Harcourt admitted signing an agreement for the execution by plaintiffs of . the works mentioned, but he alleged that tho agreement contained an express statement that ho signed on behalf of Isabel Murray Petersen. No alterations or additions were made by plaintiffs at defendant’s request, except when he acted as agent for Nurse Bethune (Airs Petersen). For further defences it was alleged : (1) 1 That plaintiffs, wore precluded from taking action- through the court, as, by the contract, it was agreed that all disputes should be submitted to arbitration; (2) that plaintiffs were disentitled to recover from defendant, as they had delayed taking proceedings until after Airs Petersen's bankruptcy; (3) that tho contract was a complete contract and plaintiffs could not claim on tho uncompleted .work. Mr Alorison explained that tho only points that would come before tho court at present "were whether defendant was liable under the contract, and whether anything had happened since the signing of the contract to release him from his liability. . j Evidence on behalf of plaintiffs was given by A. AL Wilson, J. Wilson, and A. Gray. In opening the case for the defence Air 'Blair said that Air Harcourt, by an arrangement made, had secured an indemnity against plaintiffs’ claim, so that he was practically a disinterested party and -was defending the action only because he [thought it should bo defended. ; Evidence for defendant was being given ,'whcn the cass was adjourned to this •morning.