NO CONTRACT

Rotorua Morning Post, Volume 2, Issue 257, 22 June 1932, Page 6

NO CONTRACT

CARPENTER CLAIMS PAYMENT FOR WORK DONE ON ALTERATIONS. UNFORTUNATE ARR AN GEMENT. Proceedings to reeover the sum of 11/19/7, a balance alleged to be due upon the costs of alterations to a house, were brought by C. Pepper against Mary Matilda Froggatt, married woman, of Rotorua, before Mr. S. L. Paterson, S.M., yesterday afternoon. The plaintiff, who was represented by Mr. J. D. Davys, declared that he was sent by Mr. John Wrathall to see about the carrying out of alterations to his house. After eonversation Mrs. Froggatt said it was all right and to go ahead. After working for a fortnight he asked about wages and was asked to wait until the Building Society mortgage money was available. When the job was finished. he got £10 and at a later date another £10 by post. When he applied for the balance no money was forthcoming. He had never been told to look to Wrathall for payment. John Wrathall said he never employed Pepper. He had nothing to do with the job beyond making the joinery. He simply obtained a loan from the Onehunga Building Society as a friend of the Froggatts and had never offered to do the whole job for £186. Mr. W. A. Carter, who appeared for Mrs. Froggatt,' said the defence was a denial of any liability to Pepper for wages on the grounds that Wrathall had t'aken a contract to do the work for £186 and had employed Pepper. In giving judgment for the plaintiff, the Magistrate said it was another of the unfortunate cases in which no proper contract had been signed. The plaintiff had done the work, and would have to be paid by someone. Defendant said Pepper was employed by Wrathall who had contracted to do the work at a certain price, but the court could find no record of any contract. It was unfortunate, but if parties made loose arrangements it could not be helped. Judgment was given for the amount claimed with costs £3/4/0.