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
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

THE LAW OF VARIATION.

ESTIMATES AXD EXPENDITURE.

Mr C. C. Kettle, S.M., was called upon at the Magistrate's Court on Saturday to decide a ease in which the "difference of expert opinion" was amusingly illustrated. George W. Allsop, architect (Mr J. li. Reed, instructed by Mr W. Coleman) sued Henry W. Wilding, accountant (Mr S. Mays), for £50 0/6, the price of drawing up two sets of plans and specifications for a house at Northcote, together with supervision of its erection. A counter-claim of £61 9/6 was put in for alleged ill-construc-tion of certain parts of the house, the claim reading as follows—"To replacing broken and defective timbers of roof and strutting, and making same birdproof, £25; to putting in window trays, £25; to removing present chimneypiece and providing- and fixing new one, £4 10/; the sum of £30 as being the'differenee between the first and second tenders called for the work, and £3 3/ forfeit fee paid by the claimant to the lowest tenderer for the fiirst set of plans." Liability amounting to £34 6/6 was admitted by counter-claimant.

Henry W. Wilding's evidence was to the effect that Mr Allsop prepared a plan of a house to face the sea, which the architect stated would not exceed £520 in cost to build, but when the tenders w?re in, the lowest was for £578. After conferring with Mr Allsop, the lowest tenderer was paid £3 3/, and fresh tenders were called. Some time after witness entered the new house he found that the roof had sagged, the windows leaked underneath, the sink had become practically useless, and a piece of timber was touching the stove. When questioned about it, Mr Allsop attributed it to certain alterations in the length of rooms brought about at the wish of witness and his wife.

Edmund Bartley, architect, said that he had visited the house and noticed that window trays had not been put in. It meant a saving to the contractor of about £2, but would mean the removal of the window frames now, witness's estimate of the cost to put them in being £31. The roof was also weak, and needed strutting, a± a cost of £27 14/. One way and anotlier he considered £63 13/ a reasonable estimate of the damage.

Another architect, W. A. Holman, estimated the cost of strutting the sagged roof at 23/ or 25/, timber about 14/, and labour 9/ to 11/.

Mr. Kettle: That is worth noting. One says 25/ and another says £25.

Continuing, the witness said he regarded the whole of the defects mentioned as being of trivial account; £5 or £6 would cover the lot.

William E. Hutchinson, builder and contractor, fiaid he would undertake to fix up the trays at 7/(3 per tray, or £ 3 15/ the lot.

George Carter, the builder who erected the house, detailed the arrangements as to building and their carrying out. With regard to the shortage of struts, he instructed one of his men to put in the number stipulated for, but this had evidently not been done. He considered the tray difficulty could be got over for about 5/ per tray. During 15 years' experience in Wellington he had built houses exactly as in this instance.

G. W. AUsop, the architect,. gave an account of the agreement, and stated that after the house was occupied several minor matters were rectified at the request of the owner. He heard no further complaints until he took action for the recovery of commission. Had any complaints been made be would have had the defects remedied, and £7 or £8 would put everything right.

At this stage the case was adjourned until to-day.

When the Court resumed this morning, Mr. Allsop was cross-examined on various details as to the designs and their carrying out, at the conclusion of which the case was adjourned to enable the house to be put in proper order and condition, according to the terms of the specifications, the work to be done at the expense of the architect and the .builder, and supervised by an independent architect.

The question as to whether the fees for the abortive plan should be paid by the owner was allowed to stand over meanwhile.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/AS19070701.2.75

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 155, 1 July 1907, Page 5

Word count
Tapeke kupu
705

THE LAW OF VARIATION. Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 155, 1 July 1907, Page 5

THE LAW OF VARIATION. Auckland Star, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 155, 1 July 1907, Page 5

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