THE BUILDERS' GRIEVANCE.

Wairarapa Daily Times, Volume VIII, Issue 2198, 19 January 1886, Page 2

THE BUILDERS' GRIEVANCE.

(advt.)

REPLY TO MR FANNIN'S LAST LETTER,

To the Editor.

Sir.—l soe nothing whatever in M» Tannin's letter that will alter an unbiased opinion as.to tho underhand work he ha* been guilty of. He says, "On further examining tk prices attached to iht itms, by Wrigley and Bosi, I came to the conelusion that they were noi sufficient." Thou why did he inform me it to a very fair reduction ? Wy did lie toll me Is a yard for outiide painting was too much to take off? And why didn't he give me to k understand ho thought they were high before rushing to his chosen one? No, No, Mr Fannin, the more you say, tho more you cover yourself with the mud you accuse me of throwing, until presently there will be very little of you to bo seen. The £46 difference in the reduction is easily accounted for. Barker and Williams made their reduction on the whole contract, naturally thinking Wrigley and Roso would do the saino, But tho public have seen by this time how beautifully they fell into the snare laid by Mr Fanun. As regards the tender of Wrigley and Rose being informal, on account of tho cheque not being marked good by a banker, ho has distinctly said, " If the money is in the bank, and tho cheque good, then I ain satisfied." . As brief as possible 1 will relate another instance when Mr Fannin again worked into the hands of tho some firm. Tenders close 12 o'clock noon for the erection of & house for Mr Pay ton, each tender to' be accompanied by a deposit cheque of IT per cent on the amount. On that particular morning Mr Cleghorn's banking account being at a low ebb, he obtainea the consent of the proprietor to allow his l M cheque to go in with the tender, providr S ing he made it good at the bank by 10.30 noxt morning. Between 3 and 4 o'clock that day tho account of Mr Cleghorn. stood £2OO cr,, and by 10.25 next morning, the time allowed him bv Mr Payton, it stood £270 cr. On Mr Oleghom going to Mr Fannin's office to see whose tender was accepted, he was informed that his tender was lowest, but his chequo being dishonored, he should accept the next ■ tender. (It is needless to say whose tender was next.) On Mr Cleghorn asking Mr Fannin at what time the cheque was prosented,*waa told that he had no right to. ask such a question, and also that should not for one moment entertain wy agreement between Mr Payton and Mr Cleghorn. Making inquiries at the bank, Mr Cleghorn found that on tenders being opened Mr Fannin lost not a moment in presenting his chequo at the bank, and, finding everything to his satisfaction, accepted the tender of Barker and Wil- ' liams, although they received £4O in advance of tlio tender of Mr Cleghorn'.., v The above is a little more for'Mr Fannin ,M to pass by with the contempt it t I would ask Mr Fannin' how he-can, possibly make his present way' of doing business agree with his ruling in the casa of removal of building, &c., for Mrß. B," Perry. The differenco in the tenders was £l,- and Mr Fannin then ruled that the lowest tender o;ily, had the right to reduce his price, I need scarcely add that this decision w» itpu jn favor of Barker ' William . . lan,A#„ .