Peace v Tucker

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Judgment Date01 January 1862
Date01 January 1862
CourtAssizes

English Reports Citation: 176 E.R. 61

Nisi Prius

Peace
and
Tucker

Trinity Term, 1862. pearce v. tucker. (A workman being bound to do his work in a workmanlike manner, it is no excuse for his doing it so as to be useless, that it was not possible to do it otherwise, unless he told his employer so ) Action for fitting up a kitchen range in an improper and unworkmanlike manner [137] Plea : inter alia, that the range was not put up in an improper manner. Murphy for the plaintiff Mills and Hance for the defendant. The case for the plaintiff was, that he had employed the defendant, as a workman in hia trade, to put up a new kitchen range with an old boiler behind, and that hot water could never be got from the boiler, as there were, in fact, no flues to carry the heat from the fire to and about the boiler. The defendant called witnesses to prove that flues were made as large as the space (a) Held good on demurrer, the charges being specific. (6) Unless they were so, the mere selling under the market price would be no fraud in them, and the buying would be no fraud in the plaintiffs ; and the plea put defendant to prove the sting of the charge ; Roberts v. Bjown, 10 Bing. 519. 62 FLETCHER V. WINTER 3 F. & F 138. allowed of, but that the space was not large enough to make them effective, and so he could not make a good job of it nor of the old boiler, which was badly constructed. It was answered, that if the plaintiff had known that he would not have had the work done at all. And it did not appear...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Siney v Corporation of Dublin
    • Ireland
    • Supreme Court
    • 1 January 1980
    ...of the materials used, the quality of the workmanship and its fitness for habitation. ( Norris v. Staps Hobart 210, Pearce v.Tucker 3 F. & F. 136, Myers and Co. v. Brent Cross ServiceCo. 1934 1 K.B. 46, Hall v. Burke 3 T.L.R. 165, Brownv. Norton 1954 I.R. 34). There can be no doubt that th......
  • Jesionowski v. Gorecki and Ship Wa-Yas, (1992) 55 F.T.R. 1 (TD)
    • Canada
    • Canada (Federal) Federal Court (Canada)
    • 12 May 1992
    ...v. Douglas Aircraft Co. (1978), 28 N.S.R.(2d) 636; 43 A.P.R. 636 (T.D.), refd to. [para. 61]. Pearce v. Tucker (1862), 3 F. & F. 136; 176 E.R. 61, dist. [para. Ford (G.) Homes Ltd. v. Draft Masonry (York) Co. Ltd. (1983), 2 O.A.C. 231; 1 D.L.R.(4th) 262 (C.A.), dist. [para. 80]. G. Ford......
  • Brown v Norton
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 17 December 1954
    ...& W. 5 (5) 2 Ex. D. 336. (6) [1923] 2 K. B. 617. (7) Hobart 210; 80 E. R. 357. (8) [1807] 1 Camp. 38. (9) [1858] 5 C. B. (N.S.) 236. (10) 3 F. & F. 136. (11) 3 Stark. (N.P.) 6. (12) [1934] 1 K. B. 46. (13) 3 T. L. R. 165. (14) (1889) 14 P. D. 64. (15) [1920] 1 K. B. 868 (per Scrutton L.J., ......
  • Husky Oil Marketing Ltd. v. Keller Construction Ltd. et al., (1986) 53 Sask.R. 305 (QB)
    • Canada
    • Saskatchewan Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan (Canada)
    • 12 November 1986
    ...party employing him choose to supersede the workman's judgment by using his own.' ..... "In Pearce v. Tucker (1862), 3 F. & F. 136; 176 E.R. 61, also a leading case, the plaintiff employed the defendant, as a workman in this trade, to put up a new kitchen range with an old boiler behind......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • The site
    • United Kingdom
    • Construction Law. Volume II - Third Edition
    • 13 April 2020
    ...Barton v Stif [2006] VSC 307. 143 Keirl v Kelson (2004) 21 Vr 422 at [7], per Byrne J. See also Pearce v Tucker (1862) 3 F&F 136 [176 Er 61]. 144 United States v LP & JA Smith , 256 U.S. 11 at 16–17 (1921). Compare McDonald v Mayor and Corporation of Workington (1893) hudson’s BC (4th editi......
  • Defects
    • United Kingdom
    • Construction Law. Volume II - Third Edition
    • 13 April 2020
    ...and Nolan LJJ, 30 Oct 1991); Goldswain v Beltec Ltd [2015] EWhC 556 (TCC) at [48], per akenhead J. 60 Pearce v Tucker (1862) 3 F&F 136 [176 Er 61]. See also Defective premises act 1972 (UK) section 1(2); Rocter Tanks Pty Ltd v Adam [2001] SaSC 28; Hok Sport Ltd v Aintree Racecourse Co Ltd [......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT