12 THE LAW AFFECTING ENGINEERS 



building owner died. It was held that the architect could 

 recover nothing for his services. 



6. Amount of remuneration. There is no fixed scale of 

 remuneration for engineers. It is left to each member of the 

 profession to charge what he likes; and if nothing is said 

 beforehand he may, as we have already seen, recover what a 

 jury considers reasonable. It is sometimes said that there is 

 a fixed scale of charges for architects ; but the schedule 

 sanctioned by the Royal Institute of British Architects is not 

 binding, unless agreed to. Again, " Ryde's scale," although 

 useful as a guide, is not recognised by the Courts. For 

 instance, in Stenning v. Mitchell, 1904, Emderis Building Con- 

 tracts^ p. 661, Mr. Justice Farwell said: "Ryde's scale has 

 certainly not been established as the customary scale of the fees 

 which surveyors can insist upon receiving. I think I might 

 say it is a scale which surveyors usually desire to receive. It 

 does not follow because in this case Ryde's scale applies, it 

 is always applicable. Far from it. The Court must consider 

 the work done in each particular case." It would seem from 

 this that in reality the architect is not much better off than 

 the engineer, so far as the existence of any fixed scale of 

 remuneration is concerned. Both architect and engineer are 

 entitled to reasonable remuneration for the services rendered ; 

 and what is reasonable remuneration is a question of fact. In 

 deciding this question, the following matters may be taken 

 into account : (1) the professional standing of the engineer ; (2) 

 the value of the services rendered to the employer. The latter 

 rule has been thus expressed : If there has been no beneficial 

 service, there shall be no pay. If there is some benefit, 

 though not to the extent expected, it shall go to the amount 

 of the plaintiff's demands, leaving the defendant to his action 

 for negligence. (Farnsworth v. Garrard, 1807, 1 Camp. N. P. 

 37.) In Cutler v. Close, 1882, 5 C. & P. 337, the plaintiff had 

 contracted to put the heating apparatus into a church. Upon 

 his bringing an action for his remuneration, the defence 

 raised was that the work as executed did not answer the 

 purpose. The jury were told that if they thought that the 

 work was substantial in the main, although not so complete 

 as it ought to be under the contract, and that it could be made 

 good at a reasonable outlay, the proper course would be to 

 find a verdict for the plaintiff, and deduct a sum sufficient to 



