From the Rolls-Royce experimental archive: a quarter of a million communications from Rolls-Royce, 1906 to 1960's. Documents from the Sir Henry Royce Memorial Foundation (SHRMF).
Dispute with the India Office regarding payment, contract terms, and testing for unsatisfactory vehicles.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 180\M5\ img048 | |
| Date | 28th August 1921 | |
| 40 -2- BJ/H2.8.21 (Cont'd.{John DeLooze - Company Secretary}) 6. At our conference on Friday we discussed payment. The India Office state that they cannot accept the cars because they were unsatisfactory during the test. We contended that (a) We were not told that it was an official test; (b) The test was unreasonable and the only test that should have been required was one which was sufficient to test that the car was according to the specification ordered. We are advised by our solicitors that this is so. The India Office have agreed to now pay us £30,000 on account, out of a total of £37,000 (approximately). 7. But the India Office say they will not finally accept the chassis until the new axles have been made and have proved satisfactory, and they hold to themselves the right to cancel the order for the whole lot of the chassis unless we can produce an axle which is satisfactory under their severe tests. 8. We contended that it is unreasonable now to tack on an entirely new contract for special axles to the old contract, but that if they agree to pay us for the original contract, we will enter into a new and separate contract to make the new axles, for which they will pay us separately in any case, and that if the new axles prove unsatisfactory, we will not ask the India Office to pay for them. 9. We suggested that as there was a difference of opinion between us on this matter, it would be fair and satisfactory if we left the matter to any independent arbitrator, or to our respective solicitors to advise us whether the test was reasonable under the original contract. The India Office officials said that if they agreed to this, it would have to be left to our respective lawyers, and not to an arbitrator. The India Office officials obviously saw that ours was a reasonable suggestion, and it left them in an awkward predicament. They therefore said that if the matter was left to our lawyers, it would create bad feeling, and we should probably get no further orders, whereas they hoped to give us a number in future. 10. Under the circumstances, as such a large amount of money is involved and the present conditions of test are so vague, we asked them to put in writing an exact specification | ||