CITY OF STEEL

Hokitika Guardian, 21 October 1931, Page 3

CITY OF STEEL

ARCHITECT SUES ENGINEER. VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF. WELLINGTON, October 19. Judgment of £333 3s damages has been given by Mr Justice Blair in favour of Alexander Stewart Mitchell, architect and consulting and mechanical engineer, of Wellington, against Samuel ,T., Silver, .structural engineer, of Wellington. The case was heard in the , Supreme „ Court last month, when Mitchell' alleged misrepresentation on the part of Silver as to the cost of rein, forcing steel for use in the construction; of a cool .store .for the New Zealand Trawling and Fish Supply, Ltd. Mitchell claimed £776 damages. In his : jiidgmenU his Honour said that -as early as 1914 defendant advertised l that he was agent for indented steel bars. ‘‘As a matter of fact this, advertisement was' not a true of the position,” his Honour Said, as it offered something ostensibly , for nothing, without ally; intention of doing so. Mr Silver advertised that he would supply designs -and estimates free on the indented bar system. This meant that if one used his. .indented bar he nominally got the design free, but the truth was that although no account was sent in or charge made for. the design, Mr Silver got his fees indirectly by the price which he placed upon the indented bars, of which lie had the monopoly.” His Honour. said that to offer to do a specialist’s .work for nothing, but to provide for professional fees in such an . indirect manner, was not a method that..should have been adopted by any professional man. . . . A layman, if he knew of the .advertisement and attached', any significance to it, would probably, think that Mr Silver wa,s vpaid by the manufacturers of the bars to do work gratuitously as an advertisement for their product. '• . think phat the weight of evidence. and the', circumstances generally support the view that the real transaction was actual cost of steel plus X me,re professional fee,” his Honour said. “There was no reason whatever why it should be otherwise, and I cannot, conceive it possible, that Mr Mitchell ■ agreed that Mr Silver was to be free to add. not- only reasonable professional fees, but whatever profit he •, (Silver) chose- to add to the steel. . .” Later in his judgment his Honour said he thought Silver, unknown to Mitchell and the Trawling Company, had added to the price of the steel the further sum of £333 3s, over and above a reasonable fee of £125. Concluding, his Honour said: “Mr Silver’s conduct has caused Mr Mitchell. loss, - and although I have made no secret of my views as to plaintiff’s conduct, defendant's was no better in one respect and much worse in another, ,n.nd I think that plaintiff is entitled in the circumstances to succeed to the extent of the inflation of cost of ..s,teel superimposed on Mr Silver’s reasonable professional fee.” At-the hearing M r E. Pnr.iV appeared, for plaintiff"'find Mr D. R. Haggard, with him Mr T. K. S. Sidey, for defendant. ,