Supreme Court
Inferior Court Appeal No. 8 of 1982
2nd April , 1982
Moe, C.J.

Mr. Allan Pitts for the Appellant.
Respondent in Person.

Appeal from decision of Magistrate awarding Respondent $400.00 and costs for work done on Appellant's house - Contract between parties for repairs to Appellant's house - Subsequent oral agreement for Respondent to do extra work - No agreed cost - Respondent claimed $400.00 - Denial by Appellant of oral contract - Contention that Magistrate erred in finding oral contract - Magistrate's finding of fact not disturbed - Implication from oral agreement that Appellant would pay reasonable remuneration for extra work done - Reasonable sum $300.00 - Magistrate's order varied to $275.00 after deductions.

J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal from the decision of the Magistrate awarding the Respondent $400.00 and costs for work done on the Appellant's house. The Magistrate found that this sum was due under a contract to do work which was extra to what had been agreed to between the Respondent and the Appellant.

The Appellant contends that the Magistrate erred in finding that there was a contract to do the extra work and to be paid $400.00.

The evidence which the Magistrate accepted is that the Appellant employed the Respondent to do certain repairs to his premises. The Respondent agreed to do these repairs for $750.00. The Respondent, however, did additional repairs on the premises for which the Appellant told the Respondent he could bill him. The Respondent claims $400.00 for the extra work.

While the evidence is that there was no agreement between the parties, neither with regard as to how much additional work was to be done nor as to how much was to be paid for it, they are in a position similar to what it would be if there was a contract between them. The Appellant having requested the Respondent to do the work and there being no agreed price for the work, it is a necessary implication that the Appellant will pay a reasonable remuneration for that work.

I do not think, in the circumstances, that the case needs to be sent back to the Magistrate for an assessment of the reasonable sum, and this Court will do the best it can on the basis of the materials before it. On a consideration of the evidence, this Court is of the view that a reasonable sum for the additional work which the Magistrate found that the Respondent did is $300.00. I have taken into account the Magistrate's acceptance that the Appellant paid $25.00 for extra and accordingly deduct that amount.

In the result, I affirm the Magistrate's decision that the Appellant is liable to pay the Respondent for his work but vary the amount due to $275.00 and his costs. The Appellant to have his costs of the appeal.

----------OO----------