Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

CONTRACT NOT FILLED

PLAINTIFF LOSES CASE INSTALLATION OF HEATER Based on the installation of an electric heater and its later removal to a different position, a claim for £2 10s was heard by Mr S. L. Paterson, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court, Hamilton, today when the Electric Construction Company, Limited (Mr R. W. Bennett), proceeded against Clement Eustace Shakeshaft (Mr W. J. King). Judgment was given against the plaintiff company. Bertrand Harding Andrews, manager of the company in Hamilton, said that Shakeshaft designated a recess in the kitchen as the position in which the heater was to be placed, but when the jcb was finished lie was not satisfied, as the cyclinder projected. At his instructions the heater was removed and placed in the coal shed, the cost of the removal being £2 10s. Shakeshaft had disputed the account. Givipg evidence, defendant said that he asked for the heater to go in the kitchen recess only if it would , fit flush. He did not mind if the 1 auxiliary heater on the side projected, i but when the job was finished the j heater itself projected. The plumber 1 on the job took measurements and , said that he thought the heater would ! fit in the recess. If he had been told in the first place that it would not fit he would not have had it placed iri the recess. When giving judgment for defendant the Magistrate said that defendant had been assured that the heater would go in the recess, with only the auxiliary heater projecting. He was not even told that it could have been so placed that it would not be necessary for the auxiliary heater to project. In this respect he did ■ not get good service from the ! plumber who advised him. Defendant was relying on the skill and knowledge of the contractors, who actually did not carry out their obI ligations and were not entitled to j judgment. I j More and more people arc realising ! exactly how far ahead Hooker & ; Kingston’s are with Fashion Gar- ! ments. Inspect our new Fad styles ] and judge for yourselves. See the i new Striped Coats—Millinery shapes | that beggar description, and other goods for Fall Wear that reflect the last word in Fashion’s seasonal style. Colours are glorious this year. See »our window displays for correct dressing for 1940 Fall Season.**

Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/WT19400308.2.38

Bibliographic details

Waikato Times, Volume 126, Issue 21057, 8 March 1940, Page 4

Word Count
392

CONTRACT NOT FILLED Waikato Times, Volume 126, Issue 21057, 8 March 1940, Page 4

CONTRACT NOT FILLED Waikato Times, Volume 126, Issue 21057, 8 March 1940, Page 4

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert