IMPORTANT TO BUILDERS.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LI, Issue 296, 9 December 1908, Page 2

IMPORTANT TO BUILDERS.

A decision in a case of interest to builders and contractors was given in the Uisborne .Magistrate's Court the other day by Mr. ,W. A. Barton, S.M. the case was that of W. Webb and Son v. ilnllenstem Bros, and 11. J. Brownlee a claim to secure til),-,. Defendants' tendered to erect a brick building for liallciistein tiros, for .C 5377 lUs, and two days later, having discovered a serious omission, hud been made hi the quantities of material nccessarv for such contract, gave notice of withdrawal of then- tender, and applied for return of their deposit of £IOO, which was refused. The Magistrate said: "In my opinion, the real question at issue is: Has there a withdrawal of the tender before acceptance 1 There is a conflict ot evidence. It appears flint the tenders closed on Bth .Inly, IiUUU, the two lowest being Webb and Son :C0574 10s, and Anderson .CS4D!) Kl s . U was ascertained by defendants that the two tenderers named had been working together and assisting each other in connection, with making up their estimate [ for the job, and it was suggested by Mr. | Ds Beer, one of the, directors of Hallenstein Bros., Limited, that Webb and Sou and Anderson should join in a eontract for tlie job, and after some discussion i hey agreed to consider the proposals, which they did. Plaintiffs say Viiiit. having discovered a mistake hi f l "' « "»t of the tender, they not having taken into consideration certain ironwork required for the buililiii", I which would cost something like .E3(H), they decided to withdraw the oiler. Mr. De Beer, one of the Directors of llalleiiwas very low, and it is obvious from lih evidence that he never expected plaintills to go on with it at the price flier hail put, in, and must then-fore have contemplated retraction of llir offer The law is clear that an offer may he revoked at any time before acceptance. The question for me, 'therefore, is: Did the plaintiffs withdraw their oiler before acceptance 7 lam of opinion that, they did. In reference to ilefeu I ant Brownlee, I am of opinion that lie should not have been joined in .the .action, he being simply \un agcnl for the defendants, Plaintiffs will therefore be nonsuited as against Brownlee. and judgment will be for .plaintiffs as against the. defendants, llnllensteiii Bros..'Ltd., for the amount claimed, with costs of Court."