AND ALL FOR FIFTY NOTES

NZ Truth, Issue 1253, 5 December 1929, Page 9

AND ALL FOR FIFTY NOTES

House Contractors Lose Action

(Prom "N.Z. Truth's" Auckland Rep.) THE failure on the. part of the Palmer-Ward Construction Company. (N.Z.), Ltd., to carry out a contract it made with a client ended 'in a court action and an order against the company for the refund of £50 deposit and costs. The company, whose offices and showrooms are located m Fort Street, Auckland, makes- a tempting offer to ycniner couples and others who are seeking to have their own homes. In a seven-page booklet the firm's virtues are expounded to some extent, while the problem of building "one of the best homes m Auckland," is no longer a problem after one pays m £50 deposit. s The deposit paid, the ,Palmer-Ward .Construction Company builds the house and arranges all the finance. But people wTio see the advertisements which proclaim that building difficulties are solved by the payment of £50 would be wise .to closely investigate the -facts be-fore signing any contract. When William Powell, a compositor, fancied a home of his own, and with some hard-earned savings behind him he noticed an advertisement which told him that for £50 his house would be erected and he would have no trouble over the financial side of the matter. Powell duly replied to the advertisement and a salesman from the PalmerWard Construction Company was soon m attendance. After the matter was discussed, Powell was taken to see some sections at the Westmere Estate, and one was chosen which was highly approved of by Powell. Back to the office he was taken ' and there signed a contract for a house valued at £825, and paid his deposit of £50. The plans and specifications were agreed upon and Powell went away with visions of a month hence when his home would be ready. It was not until some five or six weeks later, however, that the company found that the section was not big enough. Powell was informed that unless the house was made smaller the (building of it could not be proceeded with. . Naturally, annoyed to see his plans so altered Powell refused to agree to a smaller building and .the contract therefore expired. The firm- then took Powell to see another section. Intimating that he would have to confer with his wife over the new section Powell told" the representative of the company not to close .the deal for two days. The representative, however, told Powell that it would be necessary to send a telegram to Christchurch to get the section, and he advised Powell to alter the standing contract. On the understanding that it was only a temporary arrangement and not at all hinding on him Powell did as was asked. Powell decided noi to take the section, and- other attempts were then made to procure a suitable site. But it was unavailing, and when Powell came to get his deposit money returned he found that the company had other ideas. The case came before Mr. P. K. Hunt, S.M., and Mr. Oshorne Lilley, who appeared, for the company, contended that it was simply a contract to build, and not one. to get sections. The firm was ready to go on with the building when Powell got his section. On the other hand, Mr. H. J. Durham, who represented Powell, held that the contract was one to build a particular house on a particular section. When the firm said it could not build on the section approved of, then the contract ended. The magistrate agreed with Mr. Durham and ordered the return of the £50 with costs. '