COST OF A HOUSE.

Taranaki Daily News, 14 May 1921, Page 6

COST OF A HOUSE.

A BUILDER’S CLAIM.

A QUESTION OF “EXTRAS.”

The question of whether a builder erecting a house should be bound down to his original estimate when alterations are made in the Specifications, was one of the points at issue in an action heard in the Supreme Court at New Plymouth yesterday. The plaintiff, Frank T. Crimp, builder, of Hawera, sued Ada C. Dunbar for a sum of £302 19s 3d, being balance allegedly due for building a house. Mr. P. O’Dea appeared for plaintiff and Mr. F. C. Spratt, with him Mr. L. M. Ross, represented defendant. The following jury was empanelled:— W. 11. Adlam (foreman), H. Sampson, W. A. McKinder L. A. Ennis, and R. A. George.

The case made by counsel for Crimp was that defendant was the widow, and her husband originally opened negotiations for having the house built, but died just after the work was commenced. As executrix, Mrs. Dunbar was named as defendant in the present proceedings.

Originally Dunbar had a picture of a house which he got from a magazine, and he approached Crimp and said he wanted a house built something on the lines of the structure shown in the illustration, and he asked if it could be done for approximately £l4OO. Crimp prepared specifications for a building which, if carried out (it was stated), would have cost something about the amount mentioned. But no definite contract was made. The actual building operations were commenced, but, counsel said, Mr. and Mrs. Dunbar immediately started making alterations, giving instructions to the builder for various matters they wanted. As illustrating this, he pointed out that the specifications provided for circular windows, but Mr. Dunbar asked that an oriel design be put in. The sides of the house were put up and the roof was on when Mr. Dunbar went to hospital, and after that orders were taken from Mrs. Dunbar. Among requests made and carried out were alterations to the front door, erection of a clothes post, installation of gas through the house, and hotpoint in the bedroom, building in of wardrobe, staining floors and providing table for kitchen. All these were “extras.” When the chimney was being put in Crimp started to put the bricks square on, but he was requested to make the bricks rough, and carry out the building ran-dom-work style (which was more fashionable, said counsel). Mr. or Mrs. Dunbar, or both, were on the property on an average of three times a week. The actual cost of the house was £1560, and plaintiff claimed ten per cent on the job. Evidence was given by plaintiff following the lines of the foregoing statement. He reckoned the job was worth £1705. His actual outlay on the house was £1560.

As to the value of the house, expert testimony was given by Edward W. Good (of Hawlhta), who said he thought £l7OO was a very reasonable price for the job. It was not possible to build the dwelling for £ll4OO. Usually the practice was to take on work on a ten per cent basis. Evidence on similar lines was given by E. A. Pacey, builder (Hawera). The Court rose at 5 p.m. till ten o’clock this morning.