AN ARCHITECT'S FEES.

Taranaki Daily News, 21 October 1921, Page 6

AN ARCHITECT'S FEES.

PLANS OF A COTTAGE. OWNER REFUSED TO PAY. A claim for architect’s fees for the preparation of plans and specifications of a cottage was heard by Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M., in the New Plymouth Court yesterday. A peculiar feature of the case was that defendant, having ordered the plans, later refused to take delivery, but commenced the building work on the lines of the plans which he had ordered. The plaintiff was James T. Mannix (Mr. R. H. Quilliam), and he sought to recover the sum o£ £l6 ss, professional fees, from Don Sellars (Mr. A. A. Bennett). For plaintiff. Mr. Quilliam stated that i Sellars approached Mannix in June last and asked as to what would he the charge for drawing plans and specifications. He was told that it would be 2} per cent, on the cost of the work, the usual scale charge. Sellars produced a rough sketch plan of a cottage, which he said one architect had estimated to cost £lOOO. Mannix said it would not cost that, but in reply to Sellars gave the opinion that it would cost more than £5OO. No definite price was mentioned, however. Sellars instructed plaintiff to prepare plans and specifications. He said he intended to build the house himself and admitted having no previous experience. Mannix therefore drew up specifications of the quantity of timber required in addition to preparing the plans. Defendant got the list of quantities a few days later. When he came for the plans Mannix informed him that the building was going to cost more than £5OO. Sellars replied that he was not going to pay for the plans, and he returned them. Plaintiff subsequently sent in an account for £l6 ss, having got out an estimate that the building would cost about £650. Sellars wrote in reply, stating he owed nothing. To Mr. Bennett: He denied that there was an agreement between himself and Sellars that the plans were to cost £l2 10s, being the scale charge based on a £5OO building. Tie was quite willing to hand over the plans to defendant.

The defence admitted that the house had been started by Sellars on the lines of the plans prepared by Mannix, though he did not have these plans in his possession. Sellars’ agreement with Mannix was for the preparation of plans and specifications on a 21 per cent, basis on a total of £5OO.

Evidence was given by defendant similar to counsel’s statement, and he said he made it quite clear to plaintiff that he was only prepared to pay 24 per cent, up to £5OO. Cross-examined, he stated that the cost of the building would be between £620 and £640, so Mannix’s estimate was not far out. What defendant wanted chiefly was the list of quantities, as he could draw a plan himself. When a boy at school he had drawn several good plans. Defendant had got this far when counsel pointed out that defendant’s ■original plan was the kind of drawing which provided for a window opening into a kitchen. Defendant admitted the truth of this. Counsel suggested to defendant that Iris action in going to the architect, getting the ideas from the plans, and afterwards refusing to pay was that of a dishonest man. Witness: You say that to me outside. His Worship: You are supposed to answer questions, and the heat you are displaying will not help your case. In giving his decision, His Worship said he had no reason to disbelieve plaintiff’s story, and he had certainly not been shaken in cross-examination. The evidence given by defendant did not impeach plaintiff’s statement. Judgment would be given for plaintiff for 24 per cent, on £625, namely, £l5 12s 6d, with costs £4 4s.