QUESTION OF CONTRACT

Waikato Times, Volume 122, Issue 20524, 14 June 1938, Page 8

QUESTION OF CONTRACT

PAYMENT DISPUTED COUNTRY PLUMBING JOB The question of whether a contract had been entered into between the Parties was the point of dispute in an action heard before Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M., in which D. A. Sellar (Mr A. L. Tompkins), a plumber, of Hamilton, claimed £5 2s 5d from G. 'B. Liambeer, farmer, of Horotiu (Mr R. D. McFarland) as moneys allegedly due for plumbing repair-work, Mr Tompkins stated that defendant came to plaintiff's shop in June last year and stated that he wanted certain repairs carried out at his house. A quotation was asked for and an employee of plaintiff had later inspected the house. The hot water service, spouting and piping were found to be in a bad state. The employee, when asked, said he could not give an exact price but at Liambeer's request made a rough estimate of £l6. Liambeer was told that that figure was an estimate and not a price. The work was done and cost plaintiff £2l 2s sd. Defendant refused to pay more than £l6. ' Stephen Wilson, manager of plaintiff’s plumbing department, confirmed the facts as set out by Mr Tompkins. Witness had been unable to forsee the amount of work that ultimately had to be done. The charges made were reasonable and usual; when witness had made out his rough estimate of cost he had no intention of giving it as an estimate.

Quoted Price Paid To Mr McFarland, witness said he was away from the shop three hours when estimating the work to be done on Liambeer's house. It was true that when the bill was finally sent, Liambeer had immediately written protesting against the extra cost and enclosing his cheque for £l6. Evidence was also given by Clarence Joseph Enerson, journeyman plumber, employed by plaintiff. Witness stated that the job under dispute, on which he was engaged, was most troublesome. From the state of the pipes and hot-water system the house must have been vacant, for some time. Defendant gave evidence regarding the arrangements made for the repairs. Witness specifically stated to plaintiff that he had to have a contract price. Later Mr Wilson was sent, to inspect the house and gave the estimate mentioned. Had the estimate been over £l6. witness would not have got the work done. To Mr Tompkins, defendant said he did not have any work done other than by contract. Ralph Howard Skipwith, racing club starter, of Hamilton, stated that he was living with defendant in July last. Witness was present when Mr Wilson inspected the job. A definite price of £l6 was given to defendant, and it was on receipt of this that the job was given to pla'ntiff. To Mr Tompkins, witness said he was perfectly clear that the £l6 was a definite price put on the job by Mr Wilson.

"It appears to me that the balance of evidence is in favour of defendant," said Mr Paterson, in summing up. "I am satisfied that defendant understood lie was getting a contract price and that he would no! otherwise 'have agreed to the job being carried out." Judgment was entered for defendant.