CLAIM FOR FEES.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5348, 7 November 1928, Page 2

CLAIM FOR FEES.

PREI’A HING ROUGH ESTI.hA.TR JUDGMENT FOR SMALL SUM. At the •Magistx'Ate’s Court, Paeroa, on Monday morning W. N. Chamberlain, builder, Paexoa, claimed £ll 8s from E. S. Tlicmas. garage proprietor, for services rendered in tjxe preparation of plans. Mr E. A. Porritt outlined the case and explained that Mr Thomas called on his client, Mr. W. N. Chamberlainj; and had asked him to gjve a rough estimate; of the cost of erecting a motor garage. Details of a building had! been discussed, and later Mr Chamberlain had prepared a plan and an estimate. It was understood that -Mr Thomas had secured a plan and estimate from another builder an,d had used it in the erection of bis garage. Mr Chamberlain was claiming £ll 8s as professional fees, being 1% per cent, of the estimated cost. Mr Thomas had refused to pay, but had offered: £2.

Corroborative evidence was given by W. N. Chamberlain, who stated that it w'*s customary to make a charge in cases of tilxis kind. Cross-examined by Mr. R. S. Carden, Chamberlain said that he was nqt a registered architect, and at the time he xvas approached by Mr Thomas he was not particularly anxious to secure the job, as there; was plenty of other work available. Had he prepared: full plans and specifications he would have charged five per c,en|t. The details he had given Thqmas were sufficient to equable him to decide whether the design xvas suitable,! and had Thomas decided to go on, full plans and specifications would have been prepared. He recognised that had- he submitted a tender for a building contract he wquldi not expept to be paid for his work in drawing up the estimate. He had gone very fully into the details of the job. had spent over 12 hours on the matter. To Mr Porritt Chamberlain explained that definite spepificatic-n 3 were not prepared as they were not required: at that time;

Outlining the defence, Mr Cardten said that Thomas as an ordinary layman did no-t ask for plans 'and specifications; but merely what a suitable building would cost. Counsej quoted legal argument to shqxv that the deal was more in thq nature of a tender.

Evan S. Thomas, defendant, explained that he had asked Chamberlain to give a rough estimate of the cost of >a building. At Chamberlain’s suggestion a visit xvas made; to the section. The plans had’ befen shown to witness’s brother, who was a builder, anj as a result the work had been given to another builder. To Mr Porritt witness stated that he decliped to pay for the plan because ha considered it was work done in the hope of getting the job. A. E. Surrey, master builder, Paeroa, said that it xvas not the. custom in the trade to ch.arg,e for preparing rough sketches, for the purpose 'of getting work. He bad prepared hundreds qfj plans, and liad not made; a ch'axge except in special cases where an arrangement to pay had been madfe. To Mr Porritt witness said that in a similar case he xvould not, 1 expect to bq paid unless he gpt the building job, when the cost would be added to the cost of the buildi.n(g. It was unfair to builders, but it was the custom.

Tn; delivering judgment Mr W. Marshall, J.P., observed- that the Bencii had,, some knowledge of the^matlter. Before entering; judgment he would mention that he had prepared sketch plans, etc., hundreds cjf times, and: had not made, a charge. However, it xvas admitted that in this case some; use had been made, of the plans prepared by Chamberlain. Judgment would be given for £2, but no order, would be made regarding costs.