CLAIM FOR EXTRAS.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXVII, Issue 4962, 16 April 1926, Page 2

CLAIM FOR EXTRAS.

CONTRACTOR’S APPEAL.

CONSIDERATION BY COUNCIL.

At the February meeting of the Paeroa Borough Council an unusual claim, amounting to £8 5s 9d, for extras and work done outside that provided by the .council’s plans and specifications wa,s considered. After a. lengthy argument it was resolved that the action of the inspector be approved and the claim disallowed. At the meeting of the council lart night the- contractor, Mr W. Forrest, again wrote in connection with his claim 'for extras- on the sewerage connection put in at a residence on Station Road. The claimant stated “I rea.d the report of your inspector in the. Hauraki Plains Gazette, wherein the inspector stated t.ha,t the inspection pipes were shown, and by •innvendo states that I am not.qualilied to. read plans. Such an innuendo thrown at me is. wasted, as. I ha.ve had an experience of over fiftj' years reading plans and specifications as my'life’s calling.' ■ I beg respectfully. tQ apply for a reconsideration by the council,' and earnestly, without quibbling, assert that all the line showing the’46ft and the inspection pipe was. distinctly struck out, ahd nowhere else shown or implied. I am n_ot content to leave the matteji where it stands, but in view of the 'fact, ais I stated when sending in .the claim,, that the owner is willing and anxious to see me paid provided the amount is added to the original tender, I feel sure an unprejudiced reconsideration will enable you to at leash give l me the amount of the lowest tender. I enclose the pla t n and specifications with which L was provided to. execute the work. .-The 46ft, with inspection pipe, is, of course, omitted, as 1 omitted it in tendering.” The Mayor (Mr-W. Marshall) produced the plan signed by Mr Forrest and explained the line - ot the sewerage'which had been approved-of by the health inspector and the. contractor. The Mayor stated th’a.t it would be grossly unfair'to pay as much as the next tenderer, which would bring Forrczst’s some £4 above the amount of the next tender. If the claim was paid it would be a, tacit admission of the council’s error.

. Cr. G. P. de Castro suggested that a sub-committee, led by the Mayor, should be appointed- to go into the matter arid consider the* question-of ineeting Forrest halfway. The Mayor and Cr.’Pinder refused to (serve on the committee in view df the decision arrived at during a previous meeting. ■> Ci;. 15. 'A. Porritt said he considered i£.\ri matter for the full council to djal with.*- The council had its inspector to (deal with the matter, and thc.-’council had approved of his, report. -

Cr. E. Edwards said it appeared that Forrest had made a miscalculation, but he; thought that’the council, in future,’ should insist on the plans being drawn to sca.le. If the resident 'concerned was prepared to assist 'the contractor the council might reasonably pay an amount not exceeding the price, of the next tender. Cr. J. W. Silcock s,hayed the views Of Cr. Edwards-. .’

Cr. H. J. Hare- moved that ' tilie council adhere to its previous decision. , - In seconding the resolution Cr. Porritt said that Forrest had signed tlie. plan and agreed to tender; for the. work as shown on the plan," and there watS’ no 'onus, thrown .on the council to meet the claimi

Cr. Silcock moved as an amendment that Forrest be allowed £3, provided the resident reimbursed the council to that apiouht. t Seconded by Cr. de Castro.

Cr. P. E. Brenan pointed out thatthe council would be admitting liability.' It appeared' that Forrest had made a mistake, but he was anxious .that he should be 'fairly, treated, even though he might not have a legal claim. On the amendment being put it was declared lost, and the resolution, that the council adhere to its, previous decision, was carried.