REPAIRS. TO .-CAR.

Waikato Times, Volume 110, Issue 18440, 22 September 1931, Page 8

REPAIRS. TO .-CAR.

UNAUTHORISED WORK. AN ACCOUNT DISPUTED. A olaim for £ls 15s 4d, balance pi an account allegedly due, was brought in the Hamilton Magistrate’s Court, to-day, before Mr Wyvern Wilson, S.M., by the Farmers’ Co-operative Auctioneering Company, 1 Hamilton, against Kusab Motors, Rotorua, for repairs to one of defendant company’* cars. Mr.W. Gray appeared for plaintiff company and Mr Carter (Rotorua), for defendants. The defence was that a definite quotation was given for the reboring of a cylinder block on one of defendants’ cars and that if any ’ additional work was done to the car, which was denied, then it was claimed' that such, work was unauthorised. Mr Gray said plaintiff company had done considerable work for defendant company, which was a private transport company at Rotorua. Defendant had its own garage, but- there were certain jobs which could not be undertaken there and consequently a number of cylinder blocks had been sent to plaintiff company from time to time for reboring. Usually in such cases the blocks were sent down and there was no dissembling and re-assembling. The contract in the case of the cylinder block in dispute was for reboring the block only, but Instead of the block arriving, the car was sent down and the engine 'had to be taken down and re-assombled'. While the engine was down a number of small things were found to be wrong and plaintiff company considered it would be wrong to re-assemble the engine without putting these things rjglit. The total cost of the material and this extra work was only a matter of £4 odd and plaintiffs considered, in view of the relationship of the two companies, that defendants would accept the aocount. Manager's Evidence. Graham Pitkeitliley, garage manager for plaintiff company, said the quotation given to defendant company was merely for reboring the cylinder block. The block did not arrive, as on former occasions. The car came in, however, and the engine had to be taken down. It was discovered, in re-assembling, that a number of odd jobs required to be done if the engine was to run satisfactorily. Although no authority was given to do this work, they considered they would not be acting rightly to re-assemble the engine without repairing obvious faults. The cost of the unauthorised work and material, said witness, was only £4 Is lOd. Cross-examined by Mr Carter, witness said ids company had received no complaint relative to the work done or the price charged. Witness admitted that the 16 gallons of benzine charged for while the car was being run in after re-boring was a large amount, but the quantity put in the Lank to run the car home was probably included. ' No authority, so far as lie knew, was received for doing additional work. It was not correct that an overcharge- had been made on the material supplied. Re-examined by 'Mr Gray, witness said that all materials supplied in the job were charged for at cost price. The best materials only were used. Evidence was given by several mechanics in plaintiff company’s garage that the work was faithfully executed.