A CONTRACTOR’S CLAIM.

Taranaki Daily News, 5 November 1921, Page 7

A CONTRACTOR’S CLAIM.

REPAIRING AND PAINTING WORK. ACCOUNT DISPUTED. A claim for work done in respect of repairing and painting on four residences in Leech Street was heard in the New Plymouth Court yesterday, before Mr. A. M. Mowlem, S.M. The plaintiffs were R. L. Roberts .and Sons, who sought to recover from R. Rea (Taumarunui) the sum of £24 8s 9d, being the balance of their account for work done to his order. Mr. A. A. Bennett appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. H. R. Billing for defendant. Mr. Bennett said the plaintiffs had sent in an account for £69 8s 9d, of which £45 had been paid. Rea repudiated liability for the balance, on the ground that the amount was excessive, and maintained that the instructions were that only one coat of paint was to be put on the houses. On the other hand, plaintiffs contended that they were not advised to this effect, Rea stating he wanted to sell the properties, and he asked them to make a good job of it. Counsel said it would be shown from the evidence that one coat of paint would have been valueless, that the buildings were of ordinary timber, and had not been painted for ten or twelve years. The plaintiffs’ claim was reduced by £3 6s owing to an error having been made in the original claim. Evidence was given by Robert L. Roberts, senior partner in the plaintiff firm, who said Rea saw him about August, 1919, and gave instructions about the work to be done to the cottages. This included several repairs to buildings and fences, painting fronts of houses and roofs if required. Rea did not stipulate one coat of paint only, and if he had done so witness would not have taken the contract.

A. L. Roberts said he was present on two occasions when his father and Rea were discussing the proposed renovations, and defendant intimated that he wanted a good job, as he desired to make a speedy sale. As far as witness knew no mention was made of only one coat of paint being required. It would have been impossible to make a good job of it without giving the houses two coats. Particulars of the painting work was given by Percy Roberts. He said there was nearly as much work on the fronts of these houses as on three sides of another. George F. Goldsworthy, painter, gave evidence as to having inspected the work done by plaintiffs, and he considered the charges were reasonable. Similar opinions were given by Stanley W. Lovegrove. The defence was that Rea’s instructions were to give the residences one coat of paint only, and that the account was therefore excessive. After evidence was heard, His Worship gave judgment for the plaintiff for the amount of the amended claim, £22 2s 9d, with costs £7.