2.
41
been carried out during the Occupation.
The Company
therefore requested that this order be removed from the books of Messrs. Siemens, but for the reasons stat- ed in paragraph 2 of Preece, Cardew & Rider's letter of January 22nd, Siemens found it impossible to do this. The order was, however, retarded.
4.
I can find no evidence in our file of a formal repudiation of the equipment by the Company until the statement in the penultimate paragraph of Preece, Cardew & Rider's letter of the 22nd January, which you will note has been confirmed by the Consult- ing Engineers. Endeavours were made, however, in August last to dispose of this euipment to the malayan Telephone Company, but without success.
5.
In my view the Hong Kong Telephone Company should not be permitted to evade all responsibility for this plant for the following reasons:
(a) Major Farrell, referred to in paragraph 2 of
Preece, Cardew & Rider's letter of 22nd January was largely responsible for the preliminary planning at the time of his attachment to the Planning Unit.
(b)
Major Sherry, Managing Director of the Hong Kong Telephone Company agreed on its behalf to bear Preece, Cardew & Fider's disposal fees which in March last were expected to total approximately £227, i.e. % on cost.