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).
Letter from S. Smith & Sons regarding a financial dispute over a cancelled jacking system order.
| Identifier | ExFiles\Box 140\2\ scan0048 | |
| Date | 14th September 1937 | |
| 105 1166. Phone action Gry.{Shadwell Grylls} CONTRACTORS TO ADMIRALTY, WAR OFFICE & AIR MINISTRY BY APPOINTMENT TO HIS MAJESTY THE KING TELEPHONE: GLADSTONE 3333 (20 LINES) TELEGRAMS: SPEEDOFAC, PHONE, LONDON. CABLES: SPEEDOFAC, LONDON. CODES: MARCONI, COMMERCIAL, BENTLEY'S. S. Smith & Sons (Motor Accessories) Ltd CRICKLEWOOD WORKS LONDON, N.W.2 SALES DIRECTOR'S OFFICE. BRANCHES AT PARIS MILAN SYDNEY WELLINGTON AGENCIES AND SERVICE STATIONS THROUGHOUT THE BRITISH EMPIRE AND IN ALL THE PRINCIPAL COUNTRIES SHOWROOMS & DEPOTS 179-185, GT PORTLAND ST LONDON, W.1. 26-33, COX ST LIVERY ST BIRMINGHAM 14a, JACKSONS ROW, DEANSGATE MANCHESTER 21, DRURY STREET GLASGOW DUBLIN & BELFAST Please quote our reference: S.1. 14th September 1937. Mr Rees Please fur me on Oct 12 GRY{Shadwell Grylls} S. H.{Arthur M. Hanbury - Head Complaints} Grylls, Esq., Rolls-Royce Limited, DERBY. Dear Mr. Grylls, JACKALL Ref: Rm{William Robotham - Chief Engineer}/Gry{Shadwell Grylls}6/R.{Sir Henry Royce} Thanks for yours of the 13th September, I was under the impression when last discussing this matter at your Works that your Accountant was perfectly satisfied with the proposed settlement, and was surprised to learn at a later date that the matter was still in abeyance. We always try to see the other fellow's point of view, but as I have several times explained, we incurred an expenditure of close on £100 in the process of manufacturing an entirely special jacking system with two draughtsmen engaged on brackets and a fitting staff of four or five men solely on this job for one month. As you are aware, after completing the work we heard nothing until we learned that you had placed your order with our competitors. The bulk of the system was in due course returned by you, months after it was delivered, but it is valueless to us for the reason above stated. In the circumstances you will, I think, agree that we have been by far the bigger losers in this transaction, especially as we have already halved the invoice price which only represented a part of our out-of-pocket Works cost, and at the time we | ||