DEFECTIVE HEATER

Hokitika Guardian, 27 September 1928, Page 2

DEFECTIVE HEATER

DRAPERY SHOP FLOODED. BOROUGH COUNCIL PAYS £290 NEW PLYMOUTH, Sept. 22. ft cost Aliss Charlotte Retford £l6 2/ to have an electric water heating system installed in her drapery shop and dwelling. Imt tlie. cost to the New Plymouth Borough Council, which installed it, will exceed x2!X). In March last year, acceding to. the statement of Alisa Red ford’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 a 15-gallon electric heater which the council was advertising for sale at a cost of £l(s 2/. A borough employee interviewed he", 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 timepayment system. ‘ ‘ WHOLE PR EMISES A WASH.’ ’

About 1.30 n.m. on December 28, Miss Retford was awakened by policemen on her verandah, and on getting out of bed found tbe whole premises awash. 'Water was coining freely o' t of the heater, so she tinned off one of the taps. The police and an engineer made investigations and found that the ball in the tank had apparently become unsoldered and 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 halfinch overflow pipe had proved entirely insufficient to cone with the situation. Mi ss Retford sued the council for £315, on account of damage to her shop 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, hut plaintiff claimed that she was entitled to an article of merchantable quality and not one that was liable to possess this defect, which rendered it liable to he the cause of such consequences. If there was any latent defect in 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 £299. Air. Justice Osier 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.