DEFECTIVE HEATER.

Auckland Star, Volume LIX, Issue 225, 22 September 1928, Page 10

DEFECTIVE HEATER.

DRAPERY SHOP FLOODED.

BOROUGH COUNCIL PATS £290

COURT ACTION SETTLED.

(By Telegraph.—Own Correspondent.)

NEW PLYMOUTH, Friday

It cost Miss Charlotte Retford £16 i 2/ to have an electric water heating j system installed in her drapery shop | and dwelling, but the cost to the New Plymouth Borough Council, which in- | stalled it, will exceed £290. In March of last year, according to the ! statement of Miss Retard's counsel in the Supreme Court, she purchased an , electric water-heater or a gas califont, ; and owing to having had previous trouble with a gas installation she decided on i a 15-gallpn electric heater which the 1 council was advertising for sale at a cost of £16 2/. A borough employee interviewed her, and she chose the heater on his representations and on the catalogue description. The heater was installed on June 23, and she agreed to pay for it on the time-payment system. "Whole Premises Awash." About 1.30 a.m. on December 28, Miss Retford was awakened by policemen on her verandah, and on getting out of bed found the whole premises awash. Water was coming freely out of the heater, so she turned off one of the taps. The police and an engineer made investigations and found that the ball in the tank had apparently become unsoldered am 1 fallen away, allowing the full pressure of the town supply to flow into the room. Further examination showed that the soldering was faulty and had not "taken" on one side of the junction with the arm. The gravity half-inch overflow pipe had proveu insufficient to cope with the situation. Miss Retford sued the council for £315, on account of damage to her sho] and stock, and loss of trade. Defect, or Negligence? Counsel for Miss Retford said it was asserted that the heater had been sold under a trade name and was accepted as such but plaintiff claimed that she w»* entitled to an article of merchantable nosis. TC? not one that was liable to Sable "to £ «f fect ' whkh rend " e d « fences be TfX? lUBe of BU< * effectT ini «.- re wa " anT latent delect m the apparatus she had a claim!

under contract. If the defect was apparent, she claimed on the ground of negligence in the installation. After some evidence had been heard, the parties conferred, and it was announced that the Borough Council would consent to judgment for £290. Mr. Justice Qstler said he was glad a settlement had been arrived at. He had, since the adjournment, taken opportunity to look into the law on the matter and it seemed to him that the defendant had not much law in its favour.