MISREPRESENTATION

Hokitika Guardian, 16 October 1931, Page 2

MISREPRESENTATION

FIFTEEN CHARGES ADJOURNED. (By Telegraph—Per Pies-* Association ) AUCKLAND. October 15. Reserved judgment in favour of the plaintiff was given by Air Justice Flair in a case heard in the Supreme Court in which Alexander Stewart Ali-tclk'N, architect, and consuming nicehank-al and electrical engineer, claimed from Samuel T. Silver, structural eng.neer, £77f) damages for alleged misrepresentation as to the cost of reinl’oi ciiig steel for use in the construction of a cool store in 1927. His Honour awarded Mitchell £323, with costs. As early as 1914, stated the judgment, the defendant had advertised that lie was agent for Indented Steel Bars, and his adveitisemenl contained the following statement: “Designs and estimate's of reinforced concrete structures on the indented bar system supplied free of charge.” “As a matter of fact,” said His Honour, “this advertisement was not a true statement of the position, inasmuch as it- offered something ostensibly for nothing without any intention of doing so. Silver advertised that he would supply designs and estimates free on the indented bar system. This meant that if one used his indented bars, he nominally got the design free, but the truth was that, although no account was sent in or no charge made for the design, Silver gcjt fees, indirectly, by a price which lm placed upon the indented bars, o r which he had a monopoly, The specious form of the- advertisment used by Silver led to a vicious practice, ft must have been obvious to hm that it would do so. I think the weight of evidence, and the circumstances gen orally, support the view that the real transaction was the actual cost of the steel, plus a mere professional fee.” His Honour continued: “I cannot conceive it possible that Afitchell agreed that Silver was to he free to add not only reasonable professional fees, but whatever profit, he (Silver) chose to add to the steel.”