Court Claim Arises From Discing Contract

Chronicle (Levin), 12 July 1948, Page 4

Court Claim Arises From Discing Contract

.. A Cdse in, which Colliep Bros., bulldozlng contractors, • of Levin, claimed tne sum of £174 from Brian Lbslie EVertdh, whbiCsale butcher, Levin, fof di^cihg work ca'rried out by tlifem bft Everton 's farm, was heard before M i, H> J. Tnompson. . S.M., iil the Mdgisti'ate's .Court, Levm,- on Friday. Blaintiffs were repfesented by Mr. 3". Todd, while Mr. N. M. Thomson appeared for dfefendant. -■ It was submitted by Mr. Todd tnat the work had been done by his Clients-at the ihstrdctioh Of defendanc. * The work consisted of the discing of some 70 acres of rough country-at Levin, and it had been done w.ith a T.D.9 caterpiilar tractor pulling giant discs, He claimed that the ar'ea had been covered with thick gorse and had been plolighed, with the reeult that friuch • of the gofse had beeh lyirig juStbelow the surf^ce. Some of it had been between 'the ridges left by the ploiigh; whibh had tended to make the work heavier than usuah The tractbf Used by the'dl&ihtiffS was a seveh toh dieSel machine, which had to be carried ffom job to job ori a huge tf anspor ter tOWed by a thi'ee-ton trtick. No charge was made for the time spent in going to and from the jpl&ce of wOfk, ndf for | ahy stops due to bfeakdowns nor meal hours. The only charge made was at' £2 per hour for the time the , tractor was actuaily at work. When his ciients had been approaehed by Everton, they had given " him the obpdftUftity of payihg. for the work at a bbi' hour of a der acre fate. He had told them to choose for themselves, and they had decided , on the per houf baSis. i Mf. Todd called Mervyn Collier and Dudley George Collier, two of the bfothers iri the flrm, who gave evidence along these lines. They discribed the" heaviness of the ground and the difhculties they had 'encounted. They stated that, in their opinion, the machine theyhad been using had been used to almost full capaCityt • . Anothef Witness, Pefcy RGbinson, an agricultural contractor, of Shannbh, said that he tlsed a machine such as the plaintiffs owned. When using* this machine fOf agricultural i work, hp charged £2 per hour. under cfoss-examination by . Mf . Thomson, he Said that there ' had been no gorse between the furrdws when he had seen the land just befofe the Colliers disced it. He had done the ..previous ploughing. He: stated .that he wOuld not have .done .the work of discing the area s with a tracked tractor as in his ;experience, a wheeled one would ■have; donei the job. 1 ■ • For ..the defence, • r Mf . Thomson based; his case on- qtieStiohing whether the. services .rendered were wofth £2 per hblif. Everton was quite able aiid wiliing to pay a fair pfice, and had paid £100' into 'court as whdt was a fair price in ihis estimation5 Mr. Thomson mainfained that a wheeled tractor could have done the work and Would have i cost £1 ohly ber hour. [■ -Brian , Leslie Everton, in his evidence, gave a history of the land ahd.;t01d the Court the cifCumstances which led up to his decision to have the iand disced. He . stated that the land was a light saridy loam and the Work had not been particularly heavy. Douglas William Martel Pratt, agricultural cohtfactor caffying on his. business in the di&trict, and Bertram Rex Mexted, sheep farmer of Levih, aiso gave evidehce* In his summing up of the case, Mr. Thompson said that the dispute was between two obviously decent parties in conriectioh With What was a reasonable price for the work done by the piaiiitiffs. There was no argument that the work had not bebn done, or that it had not beeh done SatisfaCtOfily. However, it was ciear that ho pfice had been fixed, apaft dro.m the mentioil that it .Was to be on " an hourly. basis. ' The cOhtractor in such a case had to fix a' fbasonable price, this dependihg fOhiv -th'e ' circumstahces and what Was nofihal to charge for such a job. If the imachinefy he Used was not suitable, he cOUPd hot Ciaim ffom his 1 client for the time or labour involved. The Coiliers apparently had taken it for granted that defendant had known that they had only the one tractor. Robinson had said that he would not use such a tractor on the jdb, but Oh the Other hand the Colliers had stated that 'the work had been heavy and ceftain difficulities had been met. He had thefefore, to decide what should be allowed as a feasonable price, taking into consideration the evidehCe put forWard by both parties. He would, therefore, allow plaintiffs £137 of the amount claimed, togethef with Costs. W— i— i ■— — — — i — — — ■ wmbmhb