Untitled

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume XI, Issue 1354, 11 September 1883, Page 2

The case of Ponsford v. Hubble, which came before the R. M. Court last week, gave rise to a very important question. The counsel employed in the case contended that a contractor, being in legal possession of any premises he may have contracted to erect, improve, &c, cau legally order off any persons entering upon the same, including even his employers. If this is really the law, we should strongly advise all contracting parties to insert a clause in their deeds of contract having for its object the right of entry into or upon any works or building at all times. It is clearly necessary, in the interests of all concerned, that this should be done. According to the legal argument urged in the above case, a person may employ a contractor to construct a building, or any other work, and unless an undertaking is given and entered into to the contrary, he may refuse the owner an inspection of his own property and so prevent him or his agents from exercising any reasonable supervision over the works. In fact, it places any one entirely at the mercy of a contractor, and gives the greatest facilities for evading or scamping any of the internal work which, on completion, may be entirely hid from observation. A contractor himself may be honest in his intentions of properly carrying out the provisions of the specifications of his contract, and yet employ servants who would be less scrupulous, and who would not fail to avail themselves of any opportunity which might be afforded by the want of proper supervision, and scamp any work which could be s| eedily covered up and hidden from the sight. We congratulate ihe Bench in being able to penetrate the dense cloud of law with which it was sought to enwrap the above cas-■ n, and to give a judgment in p-rfect acc< rdance with common sense and justice.