Roland Goddard t/as NRG Painters & Decorators v Nottingham Construction Pty Ltd
[2013] QCAT 380
| CITATION: | Roland Goddard t/as NRG Painters & Decorators v Nottingham Construction Pty Ltd [2013] QCAT 380 |
| PARTIES: | Roland Goddard t/as NRG Painters & Decorators (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Nottingham Construction Pty Ltd (Respondent) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | MCD016-13 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Other minor civil dispute matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 12 June 2013 |
| HEARD AT: | Beenleigh |
| DECISION OF: | Paul Favell, Member |
| DELIVERED ON: | 12 July 2013 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The respondent to pay the applicant $7,393.00 forthwith. |
| CATCHWORDS: | MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE - Painting work quoted - quote accepted - agreement terminated-claim for work done. |
APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):
| APPLICANT: | Roland Goddard and Nathan Goddard |
| RESPONDENT: | Marcus Vass (Director of the respondent) |
REASONS FOR DECISION
At the commencement of the hearing it was agreed that the proper applicant was Roland Goddard trading as NRG Painters & Decorators and that the proper respondent was Nottingham Construction. The applicant’s claim is for $7,939.00, it being made up of an amount said to be owing of $7,295.00 and the filing fee of $98.00.
The claim is in respect of work at 7 Yanina Street, The Gap and work at 25 Bond Street, Enogerra. The work at The Gap was for $330.00 and the work at Enogerra was for $6,885.00.
At the hearing I was told that there was no dispute about the $330.00 claim.
As part of the response to the claim, the respondent seeks an order that the company, NRG Painters & Decorators re-invoice the respondent for $2,200.00 for the work completed at 25 Bond Street, Enogerra.
I was told that the resistance to the claim was after a discussion with the owner of the property who told the respondent that he was not happy with the work done and that there were gaps in boards at the front of the house and the invoice received was for a sum beyond the work completed.
The applicant gave a quotation number 775,
To paint outside of house, sand down prime bare timber, fill gaps then two coats of acrylic paint. Prime bare timber, undercoat and gloss enamel on windows and doors. No roof inside, seal and two coats of washable acrylic on walls and flat on ceilings.
The amount quoted was $33,000.00 including GST.
I was told by the applicant that all new timber work was painted, holes were filled, gaps were filled and it was primed and undercoated. That also occurred in respect of all brand new timber and fibro. The new windows were primed and the front of the house was sanded as were posts and a fascia board.
I was told that they worked for 9 days in carrying out that work.
Evidence was given that the applicant started the job on 4 January 2013 and on 6 January a labourer also started painting, refilling holes to the bottom of the second level, painting all new boards, filling gaps and providing two coats to windows and gables.
I was told that the pricing of the total of the job at $33,000.00 was based on a price of $810.00 a day, that being $660.00 for labour and $150.00 for materials. It was estimated that to do the whole of the job would take 31 days and it was said that it was on that basis the respondent accepted the quote.
The applicant tells me that even though they worked nine days on the project, the claim is on the basis of a calculation of $810 a day for eight and a half days. That is a sum of $6,885.00.
The applicant told me that the builder rang on a Sunday to say that he wanted to talk about the finishes because the owner didn’t like what was done. He said that the builder was happy with what was done.
The applicant gave evidence and I am satisfied that he has carried out the work as described to me. I find that his claim is reasonable.
The proposal proposed by Mr Freeman on behalf of the respondent is contained in a letter of 21 February 2013. It seeks to calculate the amount owing on a different basis to that under which the quote was given. In my view, the appropriate calculation is as has been done by the applicants.
The order is that the respondent pay the applicant $7,393.00 forthwith.
0
0
0