SUPREME COURT.

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2173, 11 June 1914, Page 3

SUPREME COURT.

mhape iiydbo-electric works,

QUESTION OF TURBINES

INTERPRETATION OF CONTRACT.

In the S-uprenjo Court yesterday, lie-, lore His Honour the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) an action was brought by Messrs. TurabttU ar.d Joaes, of WetliHgtoa, -electrical engineers, against the laihapo %,roagh Council, asking for aw interpretation of tho conditions of a contact. Mr. C. P. .Skcrftrtt, K.C., Mth Air, D. R.. Hoggard, appeared for plmtroffs, ami Mr. C..8, Morison, K.C., «'uii Mr. A. L. Arrow-smith (Taiha-pe), ■ppearcd for the defendant corporation! >» opening address, s>aifl that thff action was brought under au agreement to determine one.question ot. construction, and one question omlv, arising jrom the contract. * His Honour wouiii not bo concerned with any «meswon of ani-mni. T-lrot, and other matters Hi dispute, were to-be. left to the arbitration, of engineers, The olia question involved was whether there was power uncier tfj.s conditions of tfce.coHteact for th© engineer of tlie contract k> substitute- singlc-discharge turbines lor turbines.

(jucstiort Entirely fine af Construction.

'i'lio ij-URsiion, coansel continued, dcpMwcd entirely on the construction of " !u condrtion-s of iim cout-i'act, and not OK any oxtratieou-s matter. teamed counsel ventured to submit t-liat it was perfectly skay that th© co»ditioiis of tn-e contract gave quite as wide a power as was usually girea to engineers to al-"-or.t'he eonditioiid of the contract, but no matter how widely the power to alter a contract might bo drawn it was subject to o-ii-a limitation, namely, that i«> power, no matter lio-w wido, would justify the engineer making alterations ®t so dras.tio a oharsotoi' as to. amount to a new contract. Tho amount involved was so-tivo £481 Is., and that referred Wit to any -compensation Twrijbull and Jones were entitled to, bat was an amount which the English manufacturers laiglit be entitled to claim from theij-i o-a account cf eoiisidcration of order, Oulllns of the Case. The fa-ets in th-e ease wore thai in. the early part of 1811 the Taihape Borough Council" entered isit-o a coairact with Messrs. Tiinvbull ap-d jon-es for tlie Eii-pply of tho plant an<l raa-elii-iifiry for the borough's hydro-dec! ric lijihUn" and pumping works, tho Bor<mgh-Co«n-, oil's consulting «ngjneer, in tlie early j stages of tlio contract, was Mr. Chen*ty. S-uggat'iSj of Auckland, and a conditbli of tho ceirt-ract was as follows:— "Any alteration in the works ordered by the engineer in writing shall be executed by the contractor aud tlie value thereof, whether iu the way of addition or deduct ion, '. shall bo ascertained by tlie engineer, without reference to any , persons whatever, and tlio amount thereof shall be added t-a or deducted from the sffiomif. of the contract ■ as the caso may b.e," I

Tho original contract provided for doufek-dkefmrge turbines.' January 12, 1912, just prior to tlie 'a-eeept-ii-i'ico of tenders, the pia.ns and spqeift» catioiis t'c,r_ tho liydro-elcctrio Works woro • submitted by tho' Taiha-po Borough Council to Mr. Blaokley. gci:eral manager of TuriibuH a-.nd Jones (the contractors for t-he iHaehincry) with a loqueAt that ho should criticise fte soe-eifieation-s of the eiigifwor. Mr, Blaek--ley refused to do this, but he agreed ttt go through the speeifieatioiis with the engineer, and ju a strbseijuent tef to the MtOKSil rceofiimfinded the-siibstitutio-n of single-d-isoh.a-rge turbiuss.s for double-discliarg!® Uitbiues. Mr. Blncklcy later o& met Mr, Bu-ggate, the council's engineer, hi Aiuddand, ' and as an outcoinc the plaintiffs were instructed by Sug-gate to substitute sin-gle-dischaigo turbines for- doublc-dis-charge turbines. An order for the si-u----glfl-cirseharge tnrbtoes wa-s «t ouce cabled to tlio ma-njifiieturers in England by plaintiffs. Three weeks ihe Taiiiapo Borougli Council oWccted to tliek engineer having made an alteration in the turbines and insisted on tho original form of turbines boihg adhered to. Evidciice in support of tho foregoing was given by Sftrand Btackfcy, geu-erai : maiiager, and the. ehicf en-giiwer for Messrs. Tunibull and ,Tonus. Gaso far Defendants.

, Sr. Jlorison submitted that, as his learned friend' had said, an ewgitieer eonld i»t make alterations of t-f, a character as to amount ta a is©Sy cofitrnot. That being admitted the' ciuestioii for the Court to decide was: Could the engineer substitute oae mode of generating electricity for another The powers of tli-a 'eftgineer were, by the ■sp-eci'Fica twhs themselves, eoiiiuicd to sddiiig to or deducting; from the spcciiwaitoiis, and did not include the power of varying the plans and specifications, lbs only authority which could alter the plans and specification was the bo-r» ouch MUftril. Had Tur-ibnli and Jones declined to carry out the now singleturbiiio scheme, learned cou-t)-. £cl submitted t&at the engineer could not have eo-mp-alled them. Kvideiico for the defence- was given by Gerald Fitssjerald, engineer, of Wei-li-iigton, who said lie could not- recoftcjfe the tw-o sets of plaos as being plans ior the ssme structure. They might apt-l.v be des-eribpfl as two different schemes. The alterations were of eonsiderablo importance. Tkev conwrked two difl'erent Ways of getting the dietrie power, and the difference was. an essential o-rp. There was a difference or principle in the two sr-is of turbines invelvreg cost »r wear and tear, in fa.vour of tlie double-dsschargo wrbijie. Stephen B-evau, a of th n Tai~ hape Borosigh Council, said that on January 13, I{>ll, -several tenders for tlie hydro-electric plant were before the council, the principal being those of i virtobtill attd JoHos a.nd Mo&f-rii' sjiiefds.

I-farncd cou-iissl having addressed His Honour on the- tea) aspects of the case, His Honour intimated thai, he would lake time to consider his. decision.