RESERVED JUDGMENT

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 89, Issue 212, 7 September 1945, Page 7

RESERVED JUDGMENT

BUILDING CONTRACTORS WIN COURT CASE Holding that certain building work, had been done on a contract basis common in the trade and not as a day labour job, Mr. J. H. Salmon S.M., gave judgement for plaintiffs for £44 13s in a reserved decision in the Magistrate’s Court, Wanganui. The amount sued for was £6O 2s, but the magistrate made certain deductions from plaintiff’s claim to the extent of £l5 9s 6d.

Plaintiffs, H. Hessey and R. G. Chamley, builders and contractors, of Wanganui, sued I. B. Johnston, farmer of Kai Iwi, for the balance of payments due in connection with building work and renovations done on defendant’s property. The original amount sued for was £llO 17s 9d, but a sum of 50 15s 9d had been accepted as a payment into Court. In his judgement, the magistrate said that the matters in dispute concerned time charged for labour, mileages, a 10 per cent, overall charge, and living expenses incurred in Palmerston North when plaintiffs were demolishing a building at Milson aerodrome for removal to defendants farm. The magistrate reduced • the amount charged for labour and travelling time by £3 2s 6d; that charged for mileages, at Is a mile, by £5 19s; and the sum for hotel expenses by £5. The general overall charge o£ 10 per cent was allowed, except for £1 8s covering the £l4 Is 6d disallowed. CONFLICT OF EVIDENCE The magistrate said that the conflict of evidence on what had been said when the work was first discussed was understandable as the evidence showed that the par.ies were thinking along different lines. Plaintiff Chamley had stated that he and Hessey had suggested to defendant that the work should be done on the “charge-up” basis. This was a sys.em recognised in the building trade whereby the builder charged up the invoice prices of timber, hardware, and plumbing, also labour and mileages, and then added 10 per cent, to the total cost. The weight of evidence was in favour of plaintiff’s statement ihat a contract was made for the work to be done upon the “charge-up” system. The magistrate quoted Halsbury on Building Contracts: “Where a price for work to be done has not been fixed by agreement between the parties, the builder or contractor Is entitled to recover the fair and reasonable value of the work done and the materials supplied by him. The right rests on an implied contract by the employer that, he will pay for services rendered at his request. A reasonable price includes payment for the skill, supervision and services of the contractor himself, as well as for materials and labour supplied by him.”

The magistrate said it was improbable that plaintiffs would have engaged themselves upon the job as working carpen ers at so much an hour subject to the statutory contract of the award. No plans had been prepared and plaintiffs would therefore have been giving their skill and experience as practical building contractors. SOME OVER-CHARGING

The magistrate agreed, however, with defendant’s contention tha.. there had been some overcharging regarding hours worked, travelling time and mileages. After an exhaustive review of thf evidence concerning work done and journeys made between Kai Iwi and Wanganui, the magistrate concluded that the plaintiff’s claim must be subject to the deduc.ions totalling £l5 9s 6d mentioned above. Mr. J. S. D. Tizard appeared for plaintiffs and Mr. C. F. Treadwell for defendant.