COST OF STEEL

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 59, 7 September 1931, Page 8

COST OF STEEL

COOL STORE BUILDING

MISREPRESENTATION ALLEGED

ARCHITECT & ENGINEER

Thecase was continued before Mr. Justice Blair in the Supreme Court to-day in which Alexander Stewart Mitchell, architect of Wellington, is claiming from Samuel T. Silver, structural engineer,, also of Wellington, £776 damages for alleged misrepresentation as to the cost of reinforcing steel for use in the construction of a cool store for the New Zealand Trawling and Fish Supply Co., Ltd., in Cable street, in 1927. Last year the plaintiff confessed to judgment for £526 as a result of an action taken by the Trawling Company for negligence and breach of duty in respect of the contract for the steel, and in view of the arrangements entered into in' 1927 the. plaintiff is now seeking to recover that sum from Silver (who gave the estimate as to the amount of steel required and-its price), plus* £250 as general damages. Mr. E. Parry is appearing for the plaintiff and Mr. D. R. Hoggard, with Mr. T. K. S. Sidey for the defendant. COST OF STEEL. Andrew Fletcher, a director of the Fletcher Construction Company, said that his company was the contractor for the erection of the Trawling Company's building. After giving details of the market price of steel in 1927, witness said he was instructed to obtain the steel for the building from John Duthie and Co. When the contract was signed witnes asked if his firm would be allowed to quote for the steel, but Mitchell said that the purchase of the steel had, been arranged, and that Silver would, give particulars. Later, witness asked Silver if the Fletcher Construction Company would be able to quote a price for the steel, and Silver replied that it had been arranged for John Duthie and Co. to supply the steel. No weights and no prices per ton' were received ■in respect of the steel; simply, a lump sum for each par^ ticular lot, and these sums aggregated £1164. It was usual in making out invoices for steel to set out the prices per ton. Witness said his company would have been happy to supply the steel required for the job for £686. , Replying to Mr. Hoggard, witness said his company, when there was a lump sum , price, usually ■*.' looked for the nigger in the wood pile.''. He thought Silver would be entitled to a fee of 2 per cent,' on £6000, the approximate • value of the. "shell.'' Silver was a recognised expert in his line of work. -. \ ■ In answer to.his Honour, witness said that 2 per cent, would be a reasonable fee, including/ the normal supervision that would be^ required. No further witnesses were called for the plaintiff. * . CASE FOB DEFENCE. In his outline of the case for the defence, Mr. Hoggard said- that- the 'defendant had been in business in-Wel-lington for about 24 years, and soon after he started was appointed agent for indented steel' bars. His services were very largely availed of. He was not the only,engineer who had adopted the lump sum practice, which was notorious among architects, engineers, contractors, and others. The practice might possibly not have been sufficiently notorious to bind. a.building, owner without express notice, but counsel submitted that that did not matter in this action, because if the practice was insufficiently notorious that would merely have, the effect of throwing ,on to Mitchell the onus of disclosing, his arrangements to his principals. "USED SILVER'S BRAINS.'?;; "The plaintiff for a number of years had a great measure of success in his profession^ using Silver's brains all'the time," continued Mr. Hoggard, "and apparently, not disclosing to his principals the- extent to which he was employing Silver. He used Silver's services for some dozens of jobs between 1914 and 1928. He has never paid a fee. to Silver from start to finish. When a job went on Silver got his.profit on the steel; when the job did not proceed Silver got nothing, although Mitchell would get him to do nearly all the work and Mitchell would collect his 2* per cent. . ."

Mitchell approached Silver in connection with the Trawling Company's -job m April or May, 1927; Silver gave Mitchell an estimate of £7000 for the building, frame. Mitchell expressly asked Silver to prepare a tender for' the steel. In fixing the price of the steel Silver endeavoured to cover himself for a fee of £200 for his services, and that it was submitted, was a reasonable rem.u"?.^at l ion> lt was under 2 Per cent, of Mitchell's estimated cost of £10,500 for the building. Mr. Hoggard said there appeared.fro be nothing in the contract compelling Fletcher and Co to buy the steel from either Silver or Duthie and Co.

The defendant, Samuel Taylor Silver said he .had done a number of jobs for the plaintiff, and when the work did not proceed he received no remuneration for' his services. .

.(Proceeding.)