SPINLOVE TO GRIGBLAY
Dear Sirs, 26.6.26.
As I reminded Mr. Grigblay, I did not agree Hoochkoft’s price for picking. I gave you no authority to pay the extra, and I cannot pass the account for more than the originally quoted price of 147s.
I enclose certificate for £1,000 further on account. I should explain that Sir Leslie Brash raised great objection to the total of the account, and I could not very well draw the certificate until I had had an opportunity of explaining matters to him. Even so I am afraid he may make difficulties about honouring the certificate, and as there are various matters in dispute I do not feel able to certify for more than £l,000 at this time.
Yours faithfully,
It will be noticed that Spinlove has, by sloppy organization and lack of precision in expressing himself, not only given Hoochkoft an opening for setting up an unfair claim, but has also misled Grigblay who could have no other reason for paying Hoochkoft’s extra charge than the belief that Spinlove had told him to pay it..
If Spinlove is satisfied that Grigblay is entitled to a certificate, he is bound to draw it; and the reluctance of the owner to accept the account or honour the certificate is no justification for Spinlove’s holding it back.
SPINLOVE TO BRASH
Dear Sir Leslie Brash, 26.6.26.
Grigblay has been pressing for a further certificate on account. I held this up until I should have had an opportunity of going into the account with him and with you, although the amount—£1,316 3s. 1d.—has, in fact,, been due to him since early last February. As some items in the account are still in dispute I have certified for £1,000 only. This leaves £1,332 14s. 7d. as security in your hands for the making good of defects, and to cover any deductions which may hereafter be made from the account.
Yours sincerely,
HOOCHKOFT TO SPINLOVE
Dear Sir, 28.6.26.
We were naturally surprised at the contents of your letter. We may say that we regret the confusion that has unfortunately arisen, but you have evidently overlooked that you ordered picked as per our special quotation to you of 175s. and that we duly acknowledged same. This you will see is quite correct if you will refer to previous correspondence at the time. Trusting the above explanation will be quite satisfactory to you,
We remain, dear Sir,
Yours faithfully,
Hoochkoft are plausible rogues. They seem likely to get the better of Spinlove, who will find it difficult to believe this letter to be part of a deeply laid scheme to deceive him.
GRIGBLAY TO SPINLOVE
Dear Sir, 28.6.26.
We have to acknowledge certificate for £1,000.
As you sent us copy of Messrs. Hoochkoft’s letter quoting 175s. for picked facings, and afterwards wrote us you had arranged with Hoochkoft to supply picked, we naturally paid their invoices in accordance and do not see how we could be expected to do otherwise. We do not see what more we can do in the matter.
Yours faithfully,
Spinlove is getting the worst of this. He has put himself into the same kind of difficulty as that in which Brash finds himself over the Riddoppo paint; that is to say, he has made two parties who should be accountable to one another each accountable to him. Experienced architects are careful to avoid dividing responsibility, and are particularly wary of sandwiching themselves between conflicting parties as Spinlove has here sandwiched himself. This, in fact, is a first principle of good organization as understood by architects.
SPINLOVE TO HOOCHKOFT
Dear Sirs, 30.6.26.
Our early correspondence makes it perfectly clear that I objected to the bright-red samples when I accepted your tender, and that you accepted the order on the understanding that they were not to be included. When I found the bright-reds were being included in deliveries I at once told you consignments containing them would not be allowed on the site. When you then proposed an extra charge for picking over, I refused to agree, but called upon you to supply to approved samples and pointed out that it was no concern of mine whether this was effected by picking or otherwise. I made myself perfectly clear and I will not allow the extra charge.
Yours faithfully,
Spinlove evidently feels the need of justifying himself, or he would not enter upon a florid recapitulation of facts which he twice states are “perfectly clear.” If they were perfectly clear it would not enter his head to elaborate the point. Hoochkoft will be quick to notice this, and also to notice Spinlove’s naive admission in his last sentence, that if he had failed to make himself perfectly clear he would not contest the charge.
SPINLOVE TO GRIGBLAY
Dear Sirs, 30.6.26.
I did not say I had “arranged with Hoochkoft.” My words were “Hoochkoft has now agreed to pick out the soft bright red bricks,” which, in view of previous letters on the subject, is a perfectly clear statement that no charge for picking was to be made, and I therefore cannot pass the account.
It is for you to inform Messrs. Hoochkoft of my decision and require them to refund. If I had said I had agreed for Hoochkoft to pick, it would have been a different matter, but I did not say so.
Yours faithfully,
It is a pity Spinlove did not shorten his letter by the length of its last sentence. As usual, in his doubt of himself and anxiety to be plausible, he says too much. Although he omitted to state in so many words that the picking was being done free of charge, Grigblay was, nevertheless, at fault in assuming the contrary; but Spinlove surrenders all possibility of making good his claim by gratuitously admitting that its justice depends on niceties of syntax the exploration of which causes—in me at least—sensations of vertigo. He also reveals that he is now out of his depth in his own muddle. The only ground on which Grigblay can ask a refund from Hoochkoft is that he misunderstood the architect’s instructions when he paid, and the only reply which he can expect from Hoochkoft is: “We are sorry for you.”
HOOCHKOFT TO SPINLOVE
Dear Sir, 2.7.26.
We were naturally astonished to receive your letter. After our definite refusal to supply picked at the price we quoted for unpicked, and your acceptance of our special rate to you of 175s., we are surprised you should consider it worth while to press this unreasonable claim against us after we have reminded you of the facts which we supposed you had overlooked, and must now consider the matter at an end so far as we are concerned.
Yours faithfully,
SPINLOVE TO HOOCHKOFT
Dear Sir, 3.7.26.
It is perfectly clear from the correspondence that facings were to be picked free of cost. You had no right to make the extra charge and Mr. Grigblay had no authority to pay it. As I shall not pass the account, it will be for you and Mr. Grigblay to settle it between you. You will hear from him.
Yours faithfully,
As has been said, there is nothing for Hoochkoft and Grigblay to settle between them. Spinlove, as agent for Brash, has either to force Hoochkoft to refund on the ground that the charge should not have been made, or compel Grigblay to stand the loss on the ground that he had no authority to pay it. Failing that, Brash will have to meet the charge, unless he can prove it to be set up by the culpable negligence of his architect; in which case Spinlove would be liable to Brash for the amount.
HOOCHKOFT TO SPINLOVE
Dear Sir, 5.7.26.
We certainly have no intention of settling with Mr. Grigblay. So far as we are concerned the matter was long ago settled, and the only reason we have corresponded with you was to explain your mistake. In view of your hostile attitude the matter is now closed.
Yours faithfully,
Hoochkoft evidently realize that they cannot persuade Spinlove they have not cheated him, nor hope to retain his esteemed favours.
GRIGBLAY TO SPINLOVE
Dear Sir, 5.7.26.
We can only repeat that we acted in accordance with your instructions in paying Messrs. Hoochkoft’s charge for picked. As you have kept this matter in your hands throughout we
are not in a position to approach Messrs. Hoochkoft further re same. We have already told them your views on the matter.
Yours faithfully,
This letter, and Hoochkoft’s, seem to signalize the final discomfiture of Mr. James Spinlove, A.R.I.B.A.
BRASH FORGETS HIMSELF
BRASH TO SPINLOVE
My dear Mr. Spinlove, 5.7.26.
I duly received your communication anent certificate, which document has been transmitted to me by MT. Grigblay, and have been for some days contemplating inditing a communication to intimate my apprehensions that, in disbursing this very substantial sum, I shall appear to acknowledge the justice of claims which still await eventual elucidation when the detailed account is produced.
Your own attitude in this matter continues to impress me as being—if you will permit me to say so—extremely inexplicable. It must be obvious to you—although natural reserve makes me hesitate to say so—that I am a gentleman of not altogether negligible weight and importance in the business world, who has attained a certain degree of social eminence and monetary affluence; and I assume that young gentlemen embarking upon professional careers with ambitions for success in their elective sphere, are aware of the directions in which advantageous opportunities are to be anticipated and final prosperity likely to eventuate; to be precise, they comprehend—if you will excuse a vernacular colloquialism—upon which side their bread is buttered.
You have on several occasions taken the opportunity to remind me that the contract allows you a very wide and free discretion in deciding points in dispute, and I am naturally surprised to notice that you consistently favour Mr. Grigblay’s claims against me and urge—with considerable stiffness, you must permit me to remark—his views of contentious matters in preference to supporting my interests. I feel it my duty to a much younger gentleman who has not, I apprehend, enjoyed the opportunity of such wide experience of affairs as has been my providential good fortune, to intimate the illogical aspect of the position in which you put yourself, and the difficulty in which you place me. I meet one of my wealthy and influential acquaintances—let us suppose—who naturally refers to my building operations and asks: “How do you find your young architect, does he safeguard your interests and does he protect you from the rapacity of builders and contractors; is he a pliable and conciliatory gentleman?” How am I to answer that question in such a way as to encourage my influential friend’s confidence in your professional capacities, while you keep me in serious doubts of the matter? This you will, I apprehend, regard as a subject deserving your thoughtful consideration, as it is obviously apparent that it has escaped your attention.
Believe me, my dear Mr. Spinlove,
Yours very sincerely,
The greasy affability of Brash’s protestation—which so far as I can recall is without precedent—is evidently employed to give a gloss of magnanimity to a dirty purpose. The thing, however, is not quite what one would have expected of old Brash, and it is only fair to put the best interpretation upon it that circumstances allow. If Spinlove made clear to Brash that under the terms of a building contract the architect is constituted final arbiter of technical matters, and that his discretion is also decisive in many that are not technical, then it is perfidy of a detestable kind for Brash to use the power his years and station give him to subvert the honesty of the younger man; but we do not know that Spinlove made this clear to Brash, and the spectacle we have had of Brash’s many flounderings makes it quite possible that he did not know what the obligations of an architect are. Brash may, perhaps, have regarded Spinlove as his agent in the ordinary sense of one whose services are remunerated by a commission, and did not understand that his architect’s obligations to the builder were as binding, in fact and in honour, as his obligations to his client. At the same time, it is clear that Brash was conscious of meanness in tempting Spinlove to favour his interests.
SPINLOVE TO BRASH
Dear Sir Leslie Brash, 9.7.26.
As I explained in my last letter, I held back the certificate until Grigblay should have proved that he was entitled to it. Your honouring the certificate does not prejudice your right to challenge Grigblay’s charges; but, in any case, responsibility for drawing the certificate is mine. Under the terms of the contract Grigblay can claim payment of all sums certified, and as he has been kept waiting a long time I hope you will make it convenient to send him a cheque at once.
I have some difficulty in understanding the drift of your letter. I do not think you need assurances that I am watching your interests closely to the best of my ability. It is also my duty to see that you are not called upon to pay any charge which is not properly substantiated. You cannot mean to suggest that I should unfairly interpret the contract against the builder in your interests, and disallow his just claims, in order to win your favour; yet that is the impression your letter gives. Will you, therefore, be so good as to explain what it is you have in mind?
Yours sincerely,
Here, again, what are we to understand? Has Spinlove failed to see the purpose of Brash’s letter, or has he perfectly understood it and framed such a reply that Brash can make a graceful retreat? As Spinlove does not respond to, but rather repulses Brash’s pose of cordiality, the latter explanation is probable; but it may be that, without knowing exactly what Brash intended, Spinlove so dislikes the implication of the letter that he yields to a healthy impulse and asks Brash what the devil he does mean.
BRASH TO SPINLOVE
Dear Mr. Spinlove, 10.7.26.
It is scarcely necessary for me to intimate that nothing was farther from my intentions when I indited my last communication than to suggest that you should “unfairly interpret the contract” or “disallow the builder’s just claims.” As you very naturally divine, I certainly have no such desires and would be the last person to consent to any such nefarious proposition. I am a gentleman who has always disbursed his just liabilities without demur and up to the hilt as it is sufficiently self-evident I shall be required to do on this occasion by Mr. Grigblay with the due approbation of my architect. At the same time I apprehend that it is within the prerogatives of the employer to indicate an aspect of the situation which it is clearly advantageous for his architect to comprehend. A judicial deportment ‘is obviously an appropriate desideratum for a young gentleman engaging in the sphere of professional activities.
It will, I anticipate, signalize to you that I am pliably amenable to appeals of logical reason when I intimate that I have to-day transmitted cheque for one thousand pounds to Mr. Grigblay. I also enclose cheque for £60 in satisfaction of your own fees in respect of that disbursement.
Yours sincerely,
Brash appears to be sulky, and even a little embittered, at being taken up by Spinlove. His letter is a clever one: although it disclaims the sinister implications of its predecessor it, in fact, stresses them.
BRICK DISPUTE RENEWED
(PERSONAL) GRIGBLAY TO SPINLOVE
Sir, 10.7.26.
I have been looking into this matter of Hoochkoft’s facings. You will understand it is no business of mine what understanding you came to with them, but as you cannot agree the matter I venture to drop you a hint that you have no occasion to argue it as those reds you objected to were under-burnt bricks that the fire hadn’t property reached and, as you know, some that got built in began to go almost at once. Hoochkoft cannot hold out that those soft reds were fit for what they sold them for, which is high-class facings-and which was their warranty or I am much mistaken. I enclose just a little statement that perhaps you may be interested to see and to have a word with Messrs. Hoochkoft about; but as I say it is no business of mine. It is lucky for them you had the softs thrown out or where would they be now!
Apologizing for troubling you but thought you might like the information.
Yours truly,
(ENCLOSURE) GRIGBLAY TO SPINLOVE
SIR LESLIE BRASH
DR. TO JOHN GRIGBLAY, BUILDER
It is a pity that th
is view of the matter did not occur to Spinlove before, but it has to be remembered that his objection to the wider-burnt bricks was that he did not like the colour of them. Defects only appeared in a small number which were, by oversight or misunderstanding, built into the walls; and as Spinlove held Grigblay responsible for this, and required him to cut out and replace, Hoochkoft’s liability did not obtrude itself.
SPINLOVE TO GRIGBLAY
Dear Mr. Grigblay, 9.7.26.
Thank you for your letter and enclosure. I will write to Hoochkoft, but at the same time I cannot agree that you had instructions from me to pay their extra charge, and I do not depart from my decision that you are responsible for cutting out and making good defective facings, for they were built in contrary to my orders.
Yours truly,
We may suppose that Spinlove does not want to relinquish his claim against Grigblay, but this is not a happy occasion upon which to insist on it. Bloggs, the foreman, did his best to interpret Spinlove’s instructions in throwing out the red bricks, and it was his misfortune, and not his fault, that some of those he built in began to decay.
SPINLOVE TO HOOCHKOFT
Dear Sirs, 12.7.26.
Honeywood Settlement Page 10
