BUILDER'S CLAIM

Evening Post, Volume CXXX, Issue 93, 16 October 1940, Page 6

BUILDER'S CLAIM

ALTERATIONS TO HOUSE

! A claim for £558 10s 6d was made in the Supreme Court yesterday by Arthur Davie Paterson, a builder and contractor, against Jacob McEldowney, a property owner. The case was heard by the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers) and a jury of twelve. Mr. W. P. Rollings appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. P. H. Putnam for the defendant.

In his statement of claim Paterson said that he had carried out alterations and renovations to a house in Coromandel -Street-,-owned by the defendant. The work was done at the defendant's instructions and the plaintiff was to be paid a reasonable sum, though no price was agreed upon in advance. The work was worth £1008 10s 6d and the plaintiff had asked for that amount, but the defendant had paid only £450 and the plaintiff sought the balance.

The statement of defence said that the work was not all done on defendant's instructions but was carried out partly in pursuance of a contract and partly as extras to the contract. The statement said that a price was agreed upon in advance for the work covered by the contract and the plaintiff was to get a reasonable sum for extras. The defendant denied that the work was worth £1008, and said that he had paid the £450 which was payable under the contract and for extras. He had sought particulars as to extras but the plaintiff had not supplied them. For an alternative defence the defendant said that he and the plaintiff had entered into a written contract for alterations and renovations for £432 17s, then orally cancelled the contract and later revived it. The plaintiff did the work and the defendant gave instructions as to extras. The plaintiff had failed to render an ac"count for the contract work and extras and the defendant was willing to., pay what was due. The hearing was continued today.