HOW THEY BUILT THEIR HOUSE

New Zealand Times, Volume LIV, Issue 12660, 21 January 1927, Page 11

HOW THEY BUILT THEIR HOUSE

THE FINAL RESULT OF THE MUGGINS BUNGLE CONTRACT Last week we left Mr Muggins fuming at the delay over tho completion of his cottage, and, on his lawyer’s advice, waiting for the time when Mr Bungle should compete it. He was then Tour weeks overtime, hut he dawdled on doing odd things about place until the day when he allowed the Muggins to take possession of three rooms whilo he finished the remainder. At this time, as may be imagined, things were becoming even more hectic, and Mrs Muggins’s patience and temper were just about exhausted with the nerve strain of that sort of existence. That was sixteen weeks after the commencing of the contract, which Mr Bungle had stated previously could be completed in two months: and Mr Bungle had stated previously could be completed in two months; and Mr Bungle did not finish pottering about until a fortnight after they were in—a total of eighteen weeks to complete the work. Neither Mr or Mrs Muggins were at all satisfied with the house. The finish

throughout was of the roughest. Badly dressed timber, open joints, due not to shrinkage of the unseasoned timber, but to bad workmanship ; parts out of level and out of plumb and out of square were evident even to Mr Mugg’ns’s unpractised eye. Mrs Muggins, in spite of the choice of -wallpapers which had pleased her immensely at .the paper-hangers’, felt that every room had a garish, commonpalce appearance —she could not tell why. A week after the carpenters had left there was something wrong with most of the locks, and a number of doors refused to open and shut properly —this is liable to happen in any new house to a certain extent, but there was such an extent of it. When they opened the windows they found that in most cases part of the sashes and parts of the frames were not painted where they fitted together. The rain came through between the living room fireplace and the outer wall, and it just soaked in round the copper chimney. On the outside there were gaps between the ends of the weatherboards, and after a few weeks the weatherboards had shrunk so as to show a certain unpainted space just below the edge of each. On the “sun” porch a large piece of putty fell out of a hole in one of the posts, when it was found that they were not the only holes. All the posts had fairly large cracks which were puttied up. But we cannot fill up the whole column with a list of the defects. Mr Level Rule showed us the list he made out after inspecting the house, and we were quite satisfied that there was ample ground for complaint for we went to see the place, by permission of Mr Muggins. This was quite convincing enough for even the inexperienced. As for the outcome, it was obvious that to make things really satisfactory a great part of the work would have to be undone—an expensive business, especially as it would mean that the material would be destroyed in the process. Mr Rule’s estimate —£260—as the cost of putting right would possibly involve-Mr Muggins in a dispute in the Supreme Court, the costs of which Mr Muggins could not afford to bear if he failed—and even if he won, they would involve him in more than he was willing to spare; for all , his spare funds had gone into the cottage. So after Mr Level Rule had talked it over with his solicitor, it was decided to put in a claim, against Mr Bungle for defective work and materials, and send him a cheque for the small balance, letting him sue for any more if he felt so inclined.

Mr Bungle, of course, did not see eye to eye with his late client in this claim for defective work and materia), and, through his solicitor put in - a counter-claim for extra works which more than balanced the. claim of Mr Muggins. A number of the items had undoubtedly been done, whether they were authorised or not; but Mr Bungle’s solicitor advised him that the fact that they were actually in tho house gave some implication that they had been approved by the Muggins, though there might riot be any evidence of the cost being agreed upon: but nevertheless Muggins would have to pay a rea.sonA.ble sum for them. So it happened that Mr Bungle sued Mr Muggins in the Magistrate’s Court for a total amount of £l9B, being £1:10 balance of contract sum and £6B for extra works; and Mr Muggins’s solicitor put in a counter-claim -for £l7O, for defective work, etc., and £2O for exorbitant charge on extra works. After many interviews all parties and witnesses attended at tlie court; but the magistrate discovering the.rather technical nature of the case referred it to a registered architect for arbitration. After a day and a half hearing evidence and inspecting the work, tho arbitrator made a decision. He agreed .that a great deal of the work was of very baa quality, and, though he had much sympathy for Muggins ho could only make, his award on the basis cf the' contract, plain, and specification signed by the parties; the extra works he allowed but at a reduced valuation made by himself. As regards any defects the most he could do was to allow the counter-claim in so far as the work was not in accordance with reasonably good building practice—he could not force the contractor to put heart timber where it was not specified, nor could he insist on it being hand-dressed or finished in any better manner than the specification allowed: defects due to shrinkage of timber ho could order to be set right, but as the specification did not require dry timber he could make no insistance on that point. In default of Mr Bungle putting things in order he awarded portion of the ooun-tor-clam, as made by Mr Muggins. He commented on the foolishness of Mr Muggins placing liimself so implicitly in the hands of Mr Bungle in a matter of a technical nature which he did not understand. . “You would not be so trusting in purchasing something much smaller, which you could actually see,” he remarked —“a runabout car, for instance.”

However, the upshot of it all was that tho Muggins cottage which was to have cost £1260, cost actually that amount plus £4B for extra works but less £26 for defective work; that is £1282 and, in addition, Mr Muggins had to pay a proportion of the court costs, his own lawyer, Mr Level Rule, and his witnesses an amount of £l9 making a total expenditure on the house of £l3Ol, or, as explained by Mr Level Rule, £l5O more than the sum for which lie might have secured a good house of the same accommodation. Mr Muggins is now endeavouring to sell liis bad bargain at £ISOQ, something under what it cost him m hard cash—to say nothing of the worry and unhappiness to himself and his wife. If he ever does build again he intends to go about it the right way and secure the best architectural advice and service from the start.. We trust that Mr Level Rule will be able to show him that the value of his' services will more than counterbalance the amount of his fee.