The Gazette 1980

GAZETTE

JULY-AUGUST 1980

Defendants on liability turned on two contentions of the Defendants', namely. (i) The Defendants contention that they were at the commencement of the work supplied with an architect's drawing which indicated that the fall on the roof would be one in one hundred and that without their knowledge or approval this was altered to a fall of one in three hundred only with the consequence that there was a marked lack of drainage on the roof causing the lodging of water which destroyed the process which they were applying. further contention that during the entire process of the work being carried out by them the roof was subjected to damage due to the negligence of the Plaintiff Contractors, their servants or agents and of the servants or agents of other sub-contractors. Held (per Finlay, P.): (a) That on the evidence the alteration and design of the roof by the Plaintiffs was not the cause of the failure nor was the change in the fall of the roof unknown to the Defendants before their operations commenced. held themselves out as specialists in a specialist form of roofing insulation and that under the term undoubtedly implied into the contract, the Defendants would use reasonable skill and care in the carrying out of their work and that the Defendants had a duty to provide for and insist upon any special precautions that they required. In the circumstances the repudiation of the contract by the Plaintiffs on 13 November 1974 was justified as the Defendants had failed in the fundamental term of the contract namely to provide an effective waterproofing of the roof within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs claim for damages was successful. Dundalk Shopping Centre Limited v. Roofspray Limited, High Court, (Finlay P. 21 March 1979 — unreported. (ii) The Defendants' (b) That the Defendants

estimate for completion of the work was just under four weeks. The Defendants continued to work from that time, though not continuously, until the 13 November 1974, when the Plaintiffs purported to repudiate the contract and engaged another contractor who laid an alternative type of roof, namely an asphalt roof. The initial period of the Defendants' work, commencing on September 24, 1974 had ceased on 2 October 1974, when the Defendants left the site, as the Defendants were awaiting the completion of work by other contractors to permit them to continue the further insulation of the roof. The Defendants complained that during that initial period of work and during the period of their absence from the site extensive damage had been caused to the roof and that when they returned to the site on October 18, 1974 they were faced with an extremely difficult problem. The Defendants further complained that between that time and the 13 November 1974 (when the purported repudiation by the Plaintiffs took place) damage continued almost uninterrupted despite protests and complaints on their part. On 9 November 1974 a major leak through the roof in various places occurred during, admittedly, very wet weather. As a result the Plaintiffs' Architect was called to the shopping centre and a series of meetings were held with the Defendants when proposals were made by the Defendants for repair. The Plaintiffs' Architect expressed the point of view that the Defendants had completely failed to carry out the system as an effective and efficient system and that their explanations for the failure were unacceptable; he accordingly advised the Plaintiffs to engage another contractor. The advice was accepted and the Plaintiffs purported to repudiate their contract with the Defendants on 13 November 1974. Changes in the design of the basic roof structure had been made by the Plaintiffs resulting in a change in the fall of the roof, and the case was made by the Defendants that this was a major contributing factor to the failure of their roof insulating operation. It was undisputed at the hearing that a water-tight or weather-tight roof was not achieved as at 13 November 1974, and the dispute between the P'aintiffs and the

EXTRADITION

Robbery with violence contrary to Section 8 of the English Theft Act, 1968, does correspond to robbery with violence under the Larceny Act 1916, in this State, provided the recital of the offence in the warrant identifies the offence by reference to the factual components relied on and not merely because the offences have the same name. Sections 47(2) and 5