Builders’ Charges.

Progress, Volume XVIII, Issue 1, 1 September 1922, Page 18

Builders’ Charges.

CLIENT WHO RELIED ON THE BUILDER. DISPUTE OVER TEN PER CENT. Mr. J. W. Poynton, S.M., delivered a reserved judgment in the Auckland Magistrate's Court on September 19th. touching an action brought by C. H. Rush, builder (Mr. Rudd), against James F. Doull (Mr. Inder), in which plaintiff sought to recover the sum of £ll3 7s. yd., as the balance of money allegedly owing for the cost of erecting the woodwork of the interior of a concrete'residence.

In giving his decision in favour of plaintiff for Z 45, the magistrate stated that plaintiff had undertaken to carry out the work of erecting the wooden portion of the house for defendant, and he had looked through the plans and specifications making an estimate of cost at £235. Later, he said, he had made a mistake and a fresh estimate of £323 ss. was made. There was a discussion as to whether the work should be done by tender or by plaintiff at 10 per cent, over cost of material and labour. It was then decided to proceed on the 10 per cent, basis, and plaintiff sued in the action for extras, making the total cost £423 7s. 7d. The defence was that the estimate was really a tender, and that plaintiff guaranteed the cost (before undertaking the work) to be not more than £323 ss.

On the evidence his worship could find only that there was such a warranty or guarantee as to the maximum cost of labour and material, but extras ordered by defendant after the work was started would not, of course, be covered by the guarantee. The defendant knew little about building and relied solely on the builder’s judgment in arriving at the probable cost. The builder was a skilled man, of experience, and if, in such a position, a man assured another that a work would cost only a certain amount, knowing that the means of the other were not sufficient to go beyond that sum and, that on such assurance or guarantee the owner was induced to go on with it, no further sum could be recovered. The specifications were crude and imperfect, but plaintiff, as a builder, was fully aware of their defects and should have pointed these out to defendant.. Another point was the matter of 10 per cent, over all. Defendant contended that this should not be charged on plaintiff’s labour, and that

the statement of ;03 2 3 s s * would have to be taken -tdiwuwu xjj. wuum xicive to oe taKen to be included in the 10 per cent. There seemed to have been a misunderstanding on the 10 per cent, arrangement. The Magistrate was of the opinion that plaintiff could charge 10 per cent, over the cost of his own labour, as well as other labour. Plaintiff paid accounts, supervised the work and, admittedly, made a good job of his part of the work. It had been proved that the cost was a good deal more than his estimate, and although he might not be able to recover more than the estimated amount, plaintiff was entitled to 10 per cent, above the whole cost up to the sum agreed —£323 ss. Judgment would therefore be for £45 ns. 3d. and costs.