The Honeywood Files (6 page)

Yours sincerely,

As it is impossible to know whether Spinlove first read this letter or the telegram that is filed next it, it is impossible to imagine his feelings on that second day of August 1924. We shall be safe, however, in giving him our sympathy.

(TELEGRAM) NIBNOSE & RASPER TO SPINLOVE

2.8.24.

Regret must withdraw tender writing Nibrasp.

NIBNOSE & RASPER TO SPINLOVE

Dear Sir, 2.8.24.

We much regret we were obliged to wire to you to-day withdrawing our tender, as per enclosed confirmation. On receipt of your letter, for which we thank you, we noticed the large difference between the amount of our tender and the next lowest price, and on checking over our prices we found an error of several hundred pounds. We may say that such a thing has not happened in our experience, and was due to an irregularity in the bills. The tiler’s bill is paged 1, 2, 3, 2, 3, 4, and the clerk in collecting the castings of each page to arrive at the total did not observe the repetition of pages 2 and 3, and omitted two pages, which was not noticed in the check as they were stuck together by a blot of ink.

The correct total of our pricings is £18,953 4s. 7d., and we shall be obliged if you will substitute this figure for that entered on our tender, as the mistake arose through error in the particulars supplied to us, and although we would have corrected it had we noticed, we feel that we were led into the error which would not have occurred had the bills been correctly paged.

We shall be glad to send the bills to you or to your quantity surveyor for examination so that our statement may be checked.

Yours obediently,

Spinlove has again been unlucky, but his ill-luck is again attributable to his lack of perspicacity. He should have noted the incongruity of Nibnose & Rasper’s tender, told them that before recommending their tender the priced bills were to be sent to the quantity surveyor for examination; and said nothing of the other tenders received.

The state of affairs now is that as Nibnose & Rasper know the amount of the tender they have to beat, they can increase their bid to one very little less than the next one above. This, it appears, is what they may actually have done. Bills are usually priced out in pencil and the rates could be readily reviewed and amended to give a more judicious total. Opinions would differ on the point whether, in the matter of business, this would be a dishonest act. The old-established building firms, in which the pride and tradition of craftsmanship still linger, are, with scarcely an exception, honourable and fair-dealing; but the field of business is very much a field of battle and has its own code, and when one side surprises a weakness in the defences of the other, it can only be assumed, in the course of business, that use will be made of that advantage. This revised tender is, however, a new tender; and as it has not been delivered before the hour fixed for the receipt of tenders it is, strictly speaking, inadmissible. On the other hand, the error in the original tender arose from irregularity in the particulars supplied and “Nibrasp” is entitled to some consideration.

Spinlove, also, has notified Grigblay and others that their tenders are not accepted, and any or all of them may have other irons hot in the fire or have given the go-by to options and quotations upon which their tenders were based, and thus will be unwilling to renew their tenders except at an increased price; and as each now knows who his rivals are, all can get together and arrange a lowest tender in collusion, so that the devices to secure bona fide competitive tenders are now, in a great measure, stultified. It should be understood that this kind of collusion is not illegal.

Another aspect of the case is whether Spinlove’s notification to “Nibrasp” that he had recommended their tender for acceptance, constitutes actual acceptance, and therefore debars “Nibrasp” from withdrawing; but as the tender relieves the proprietor from obligation to “accept the lowest or any tender” we may assume the tender has not been accepted and that the “Nibrasp” withdrawal is good. In any case it would be a foolish policy to compel him to build at a price which was known to be disastrous for him: a house is not a sewer or a gasometer, and the ready collaboration of the builder is necessary for its success. Spinlove’s predicament is, therefore, an awkward one; and he has also the painful duty of swallowing his own complacency and deflating the exuberances he has roused in the bosom of his client.

SPINLOVE TO BRASH

Dear Sir Leslie Brash, 4.8.24.

I am extremely sorry to have to tell you that with your letter of Saturday I found a telegram from Nibnose & Rasper withdrawing their tender; and this morning I have received a letter from them stating that they made a mistake in casting up their total, and substituting a tender of £18.953 4s. 7d. Such a thing is quite new in my experience. This revised tender is only £27 less than Grigblay’s and I am very sorry to say, more than my estimate has prepared you for. I should mention, however, that the tenders include the sum of £300 for contingencies— that is a sum to cover unforeseen work which may, only, be wanted—so that the actual tender for the work can be considered to be £18,653 4s. 7d., which is only £153 4s. 4d. more than my own estimate. I am extremely sorry this has happened and am much disappointed. Perhaps it would be well if I saw you to-morrow. I can come over at any hour that suits you if you would be so good as to ring up and let me know.

Yours sincerely,

As Spinlove was before far too self-congratulatory, so he is here altogether too apologetic. Although the uninitiated may suppose that an architect, by looking at the plan of a house, can name the lowest sum for which unknown builders on an unknown day and under unknown conditions will bargain to build it, Spinlove’s estimate of £18,500 was, in fact, not so wide of the mark as such estimates go. He was probably too ready to hope for the best in arranging modifications with the quantity surveyor, but he is less than 2.5 percent below the tendered price. Brash has nothing to complain of, and Spinlove should not, as he does, invite him to think that he has. Spinlove ought to have found an early opportunity of letting Brash understand that an architect can, at best, make only a shrewd guess at the cost of a building; and that even builders, with exact particulars before them of the measured amount of labour and materials involved in the work, arrive at results varying by 20 and even 30 percent and, when all is done, often find themselves on the wrong side of the account. Spinlove, although his earnestness is exemplary, is worrying and wearying himself to no useful purpose by identifying himself so closely with his client’s monetary anxieties. He should regard himself strictly as an agent conducting another’s business; his own particular business being to get the house well, economically, and beautifully built. He should have written in some such terms as these: “Dear Sir Leslie Brash—Nibnose & Rasper have withdrawn their tender on the grounds of an error in their calculations, and have substituted an amended tender for £18,953 4s. 7d. Will you let me know what you wish me to do. Perhaps it would be better if I saw you. . . .”

If he had so written he would have exonerated instead of blamed himself, and put the plain question before Brash instead of confounding him with a confusion of issues. Such a letter, it is true, would appear to Brash curt and offhand in contrast with those he is used to receiving from his architect, and is to be regarded as the sort of letter Spinlove ought to be able to write without appearing curt and offhand. The meeting, we gather, duly took place, for we next read:

SPINLOVE TO WILLIAM WYCHETE
,
ESQ
.,
P.P
.
R
.
I
.
B
.
A
.

Dear Mr. Wychete, 5.8.24.

You have been so kind in letting me ask your advice that I hope you will not mind my writing to you, as I am in a fix. On the enclosed sheet I have set out the position of affairs. The question is what ought I to do? Sir Leslie Brash, my client, is fixed in his decision to accept the second lowest tender, that of John Grigblay, because Grigblay is the better builder. He says he has the right to accept any tender, and he can do what he likes. I can make no impression on him. If you could tell me what line I ought to take I should be very much obliged to you.

Yours sincerely,

WYCHETE TO SPINLOVE

My dear Spinlove, 7.8.24.

Your scrape interests me. Your client is morally bound to accept the lowest tender: that is clearly understood when particular builders are invited to tender, for if their tenders are not wanted there is no just reason for troubling them to prepare them. You can do no more than tell your friend this. He is, however, within his rights in not accepting the lowest or any, although this right is intended only as a safeguard.

I do not think Nibnose & Rasper’s revised tender is admissible. It was sent in after the amounts of the other tenders were published, and for all we know their actual prices may originally have been higher than Grigblay’s. If you accept it, Grigblay would have grounds for feeling aggrieved. You could write to N. & R. and say that as they withdrew their original tender their substituted tender is a new tender and was received too late for you to consider it; but I think the best course would be to tell them that the owner has instructed you to say that he cannot accept. Grigblay will certainly come to terms; you will have secured a good builder; will be free of responsibility for the choice, and relieved of the necessity for deciding a difficult point and finding reasons for your decision. You ought to be glad your client has taken the matter into his own hands.

Best Wishes from,

Yours sincerely,

SPINLOVE TO BRASH

Dear Sir Leslie Brash, 8.8.24.

I saw Mr. Grigblay to-day. He is willing to renew his tender, and I am meeting him to-morrow at the quantity surveyor’s to see what reductions can be made in the matters I proposed to you. I will write to you to-morrow or call in the afternoon.

Yours sincerely,

SPINLOVE TO NIBNOSE & RASPER

Dear Sirs, 8.8.24.

I am instructed by the owner, Sir Leslie Brash, to thank you for your tender of August 2, but to say that he regrets he is unable to accept it.

Yours faithfully,

NIBNOSE & RASPER TO SPINLOVE

Dear Sir, 9.8.24.

We were naturally astonished to get your letter informing us that our tender is not accepted. We may say that we are unused to being treated in that style and we are quite as capable of making a good job as Grigblay or any other on your list. If we had known our tender was only going to be made use of as a check upon the prices of other firms we should not have accepted your invitation, and we may say that we are not anxious to tender again with any such purpose. We do not know what the meaning of all this business is nor why Grigblay is given a preference over us when we were invited to tender and our firm was well known long before Mr. Grigblay came on the scenes, but we may say that we consider that we have been treated in a very offhand and inconsiderate manner.

Yours obediently,

SPINLOVE TO NIBNOSE & RASPER

Dear Sirs, 11.8.24.

Permit me to assure you that in inviting you to tender I did so with the intention that you should be given the contract if you offered the lowest price. The decision not to accept your tender did not originate with me nor did I favour it. I can only say that I regret very much what has happened, and that I hope you will tender to me in the future and be successful in securing the contract, for I should have confidence in entrusting work to you. Believe me,

Yours truly,

Spinlove is distinguishing himself. Wychete’s advice has been well observed by him. Without it he would characteristically have elaborated the matter of the substituted tender and involved him self in a wrangle. As it is, he has written a letter which is obviously sincere and which will go far to soothe the “Nibrasp” chagrin— although not so fully, it appears, as to produce an acknowledgment—and he has not, for once, said too much.

SPINLOVE TO BRASH

Dear Sir Leslie Brash, 11.8.24.

I send you herewith memorandum of agreement in duplicate signed by Grigblay. If you will sign both with witness where marked and return to me I will let Grigblay have his copy and get yours stamped. I enclose copy of the schedule of variations you saw, showing the reductions by which the total of £18,440 is arrived at.

Grigblay signed drawings and specification to-day. He will begin getting his plant on the site on Wednesday and on Friday I am going on to the site. Can you come down on that day and approve the marks fixing the position of the house?

Yours sincerely,

SPINLOVE TO EWART HOOCHKOFT & CO
.,
LTD
.

Dear Sirs, 15.8.24.

I shall be glad if you will send me two or three samples, with prices, of your medium, red, broken-coloured, 2.5 in. sand-faced slop facing bricks such as I saw at last year’s Building Trades’ Exhibition. The samples should show extremes of variety in colour, texture, etc.

Yours faithfully,

GRIGBLAY TO SPINLOVE

Dear Sir, 22.8.24.

Our foreman, Bloggs, who is setting out house, has informed us that dimensions on plan do not work out correct. Shall be glad if you will give immediate instructions so that we can get on with the digging.

Yours faithfully,

We are to gather that Brash duly approved the position of the house on the ground, and that the builder has since been engaged in setting out the position of walls preparatory to laying their foundations.

Grigblay may be a good builder and a competent organizer, but he appears from this letter to be a man who means to get the job carried through and no nonsense about it. Spinlove would be justified in feeling a little uneasy. A really first-rate builder would be likely to show solicitude and say what the difficulty in question was. Grigblay may have had unfortunate experience at the hands of architects in the past and, having met Spinlove, may have sized him up. He does not intend to put up with flabbiness. As a successful builder he knows his job and he expects the architect to know his.